Their "Solution" Is Not "THE" Solution to Mass Shootings - Granite Grok

Their “Solution” Is Not “THE” Solution to Mass Shootings

The Santa Monica shooting spree is an excellent example of why the eggs anti-self defense Democrats and their stage props are advocating for don’t do any of the things they insist they will.  California has everything a background bill supporter could want and then some, and it still failed to address the root problem that lead to the tragedy.  All their legislation would do, as we have said over and over, is leave law abiding citizens unarmed, increasing the number of target rich environments for some lunatic shooter to take range practice in.

Because we cannot all carry 200 pound police officers on our backs, and as citizens we are responsible for securing our own peace, security, and by extension–happiness and prosperity, which with few exceptions includes the right of citizens arrest, it behooves the law-abiding citizen militia to act responsibly in husbanding that peace when no other alternatives present themselves.  Even in California where…

California Penal Code section 837 is a good example of this codification:

837. A private person may arrest another:

  1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence.

  2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.

  3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

And yet the state, California in particular, has done everything in its power to disarm, dissuade, and even intimidate citizens out of any personal or collective responsibility for keeping the peace when a paid peace officer is many or any number of minutes away from a disturbance.    And over at PJMedia, Clayton Cramer gives us the run down on the this particular killer, how California managed to impair citizens, without impairing someone bent on subverting the law, who knows there are no policemen about, and can be certain that no one will be able to defend themselves from him.

link

According to news accounts, the killer used an “assault-style weapon.”  Unsurprisingly, the 24-year-old killer had a history of mental illness, a run-in with the police, and had been hospitalized at some point in the last few years (although it remains unclear if this was voluntary or involuntary).  As regular readers of my columns know, this is the heart of the mass murder problem, not just in America, but in Europe and Canada as well.

But how could this happen? California has had an assault weapons ban since 1989, progressively tightened over a decade.  This law has been on the books, and enforced, since the killer was bornThe only lawful way for a Californian to possess a high-capacity magazine is if he owned it before 2000 – when the killer was eleven years old. California passed a firearms-transfer background check requirement that took effect on January 1, 1991, which checks not only for felony and violent misdemeanor convictions and pending charges, but also for involuntary mental hospital commitments.  Even if you are only held for 72 hour observation and then determined to be not crazy enough for longer term treatment, you are ineligible to possess a firearm for five years.  The shooter was 24– unless he was hospitalized between 18 and 19, he could not have legally purchased any firearm.  You can’t drive across the border into Arizona or Nevada to legally buy a gun; federal law prohibits such transfers unless your state of residence allows such transfers — and California does not.

If a left-leaning, anti-gun state like California can’t prevent these types of events what could they possibly have on the Bloomberg Bus that will?  Nothing.  Guilt, fear, and intimidation.  How dare you own a gun when one was used to kill children.  That’s all three acts of their play.  And it has nothing to do with death or children.  Cars kill more children every year, year after year.  More children have probably dies in, on, or because of buses than from mass shootings an yet here comes the Bloomberg bus to guilt us into giving up our guns. (Maybe we need more bus-free zones, hmm?)

e All the gun-grabbers want is to hold a monopoly on force, like any good blooming tyranny would.  The result of that is more victim spaces that give those few who are disturbed or just evil enough to fulfill their killing spree fantasies.

There is a reason mass shooters do not choose gun shows, NRA Conventions, or places in states where almost anyone may be armed and trained in self defense.   It is the same reason they don’t wander into a police station to start their killing spree.   Everyone there is armed, prepared to defend themselves and the law, and will do so with extreme prejudice.

The gun-grabbers want to take one more step in nationalizing the disarming of America.  They don’t care about what already works in New Hampshire or what did not work in California or Connecticut.  They just want to use this as an excuse to accumulate power and they do not care if it makes any sense or not.

 

 

>