Mass shooting in California

[LurchAddams]

You're just proving why Americans should stand against your totalitarian desires, Lurch.

Do you have pet names for your guns? Let me guess.. your little 22 pistol you call, "Nancy" and your senile, misfiring, pea-shooter, you call, "Ronnie"?

I know nailed it

 

[LV426]

-a state with strict gun control laws--in a mass shooting.

How are CA's gun laws supposed to prevent someone from buying a gun in another state and trafficking it into CA?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Right, so it was bought somewhere else and brought into CA to commit a crime.

So how is that the fault of CA's gun laws?

Wouldn't it be the fault of wherever this person got the gun?

It proves CA's gun laws aren't addressing the actual problem of California citizens committing suicide or murdering each other.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Do you have pet names for your guns? Let me guess.. your little 22 pistol you call, "Nancy" and your senile, misfiring, pea-shooter, you call, "Ronnie"?

I know nailed it

LOL No, but it's interesting to see where you go with this. Please keep going.

 

[archives]

Another red herring. The topic at hand isn't where the gun came from, but that it was used in California--a state with strict gun control laws--in a mass shooting. What this shows is that those strict gun laws don't prevent or stop such an occurrence from happening. That is, because for the most part those laws are only obeyed by the lawful. A criminal doesn't give a shit about gun laws.

Sure it is, imagine if all the thirty nine million plus people of California had easy access to semiautomatic weapons, California’s homicide rates would quickly pass even the gun free States that lead the nation in homicides. Given the size of the population and number of gun homicides in the State, California’s strict gun laws are doing fine, as they are in the vast majority of all strict gun law States. Now if they could only find a way to curtail those bringing guns into the State

 

[LV426]

I don't know if it was or not. Do you have a source that says it was?

Update. I looked at several articles on this. The shooter(s) has not been apprehended so we don't know where the gun came from. It is also the latest in a string of shootings and firearm incidents at that school, the last being on August 29th involving a 13-year-old with a gun...

Right, so where and how are these people getting all these guns?

That seems like the most important question here.

 

[LV426]

It proves CA's gun laws aren't addressing the actual problem of California citizens committing suicide or murdering each other.

That's not the actual problem because people commit suicide and kill each other IN EVERY STATE, at rates FAR HIGHER than in CA.

The actual problem are the guns.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

How are CA's gun laws supposed to prevent someone from buying a gun in another state and trafficking it into CA?

They supposedly make possession of firearms that are illegal in California illegal to import into the state. So, it comes back to what I stated: California's gun laws do NOTHING to stop criminals from possessing firearms. They only disarm the law abiding.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Right, so where and how are these people getting all these guns?

That seems like the most important question here.

Given things, from other crimes, from criminal dealers that sell arms acquired elsewhere. Basically, they are getting them from crimes one way or another so all California has done with strict gun laws is a combination of disarm the law abiding while adding a relatively minor level of complexity to getting a gun as a criminal.

 

[LurchAddams]

LOL No, but it's interesting to see where you go with this. Please keep going.

No, I'm pretty much done. Gotta get back on the road, Mary-lou. You keep fighting the good fight against us "totalitarian demmycrats"

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That's not the actual problem because people commit suicide and kill each other IN EVERY STATE, at rates FAR HIGHER than in CA.

The actual problem are the guns.

No, the gun is just a tool. The gun isn't the problem, people are the problem. Taking away someone's hammer when they want to drive a nail only means they'll use some other tool to accomplish driving that nail.

 

[LV426]

They supposedly make possession of firearms that are illegal in California illegal to import into the state.

"Supposedly"? So you don't know? So you're just making an assumption?

Everything you are saying leads back to the same problem: THE GUNS.

And most all the guns used in crimes were guns that started out as legally purchased weapons.

So gun owners are the suppliers of guns to criminals.

Criminals don't conjure guns out of thin air, they get them three different ways:

1. They steal them (This is the most common way criminals get guns)

2. They buy them from straw purchasers. (This is the second most common way criminals get guns)

3. Someone gives it to them (The third most common way criminals get guns)

Every single gun that winds up in the hands of criminals was first purchased legally by a "responsible gun owner". Then that RGO either lost the gun, had it stolen, or sold it under the table because they needed the cash.

So gun owners are the sole suppliers of guns to criminals, supplying them with at least 200,000 guns a year.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Sure it is, imagine if all the thirty nine million plus people of California had easy access to semiautomatic weapons, California’s homicide rates would quickly pass even the gun free States that lead the nation in homicides. Given the size of the population and number of gun homicides in the State, California’s strict gun laws are doing fine, as they are in the vast majority of all strict gun law States. Now if they could only find a way to curtail those bringing guns into the State

Suicide and murder are interesting, albeit extreme acts. Often associated with cultural issues. It's not so simple-minded a solution as banning guns....as if that would really pass.

Why do you think the suicide rate varies among the States? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6917a4.htm
SUICIDE rate by State

IMO, there's a cultural attitude that plays into whether a person murders someone, takes their own life or simply adapts and moves forward. This becomes more apparent when categorizing such acts by income level.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6203a28.htm
Homicide rates by State

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/income-inequalitys-most-disturbing-side-effect-homicide/
Income Inequality’s Most Disturbing Side Effect: Homicide
Where financial disparities are greatest, the murder rate tends to be high

Income inequality can cause all kinds of problems across the economic spectrum—but perhaps the most frightening is homicide. Inequality—the gap between a society's richest and poorest—predicts murder rates better than any other variable, according to Martin Daly, a professor emeritus of psychology at McMaster University in Ontario, who has studied this connection for decades. It is more tightly tied to murder than straightforward poverty, for example, or drug abuse. And research conducted for the World Bank finds that both between and within countries, about half the variance in murder rates can be accounted for by looking at the most common measure of inequality, which is known as the Gini coefficient.

The murders most associated with inequality, it seems, are driven by a perceived lack of respect. Like most killings, these are mostly perpetrated by males—and in societies with low inequality, there tend to be very few murders. To an outsider, these deaths, which make up more than a third of the homicides with known motives reported to the FBI, seem senseless: a guy looks at someone else the wrong way, makes a disrespectful remark, or is believed to have winked at another man's wife or girlfriend. These incidents seem too trivial to be matters of life and death. “A prosperous guy like me, if someone [insults me] in a bar, I can roll my eyes and leave,” Daly says. “But if it's your local bar, you are unemployed or underemployed, and your only source of status and self-respect is your standing in the neighborhood, turning the other cheek looks weak, and everyone soon knows you are an easy mark.

 

[LV426]

California's gun laws do NOTHING to stop criminals from possessing firearms

Well, how do the criminals get those firearms in the first place?

 

[Bigdog]

You provided a list proving that gun homicides tend to be higher in conservative states, and then blame black people.

Maybe those states should elect different state governments

White lib pretending he's not attacking Black Americans for their extraordinarily high homicide rate. Racist pig

 

[LV426]

Given things, from other crimes, from criminal dealers that sell arms acquired elsewhere.

OK, but every single gun that winds up in the hands of these criminals was a gun that was first purchased legally by a "responsible gun owner".

Then that "responsible gun owner" loses the gun, has it stolen, or sells it for the cash to someone shady.

The only source of guns for criminals are gun owners.

So if you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, you need to restrict gun ownership.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That's not the actual problem because people commit suicide and kill each other IN EVERY STATE, at rates FAR HIGHER than in CA.

The actual problem are the guns.

A concrete thinker would easily believe that inanimate objects are the problem. Do you also read your horoscope? Go to a palm reader to tell you your fate as written in the stars or your hand?

 

[LV426]

Basically, they are getting them from crimes one way or another so all California has done with strict gun laws is a combination of disarm the law abiding while adding a relatively minor level of complexity to getting a gun as a criminal.

CA has nothing to do with "responsible gun owners" losing their weapons, having them stolen, or selling them for the cash to someone shady.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

"Supposedly"? So you don't know? So you're just making an assumption?

Everything you are saying leads back to the same problem: THE GUNS.

And most all the guns used in crimes were guns that started out as legally purchased weapons.

So gun owners are the suppliers of guns to criminals.

Criminals don't conjure guns out of thin air, they get them three different ways:

1. They steal them (This is the most common way criminals get guns)

2. They buy them from straw purchasers. (This is the second most common way criminals get guns)

3. Someone gives it to them (The third most common way criminals get guns)

Every single gun that winds up in the hands of criminals was first purchased legally by a "responsible gun owner". Then that RGO either lost the gun, had it stolen, or sold it under the table because they needed the cash.

So gun owners are the sole suppliers of guns to criminals, supplying them with at least 200,000 guns a year.

If you get rid of every gun and do nothing to get rid of violent criminals, will you still have violent crime?

If you get rid of every violent criminal, and do nothing to get rid of guns, will you still have violent crime?

It's the criminals stupid!

 

[McRocket]

You might note that it's not getting much play on the news. My guess is because it makes Progressive Leftists and their gun control issue look like shit...

That is twice you appear to be blaming the left for this shooting (indirectly).
That it was their gun control laws that are the indirect cause of these shootings.

What is your solution to stopping, mass-shooting then?
If their ideas are so awful?