2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,977
- 52,257
- 2,290
this is a great piece by a great writer....
What Law—Specifically—Would Have Prevented Yesterday's UCLA Shooting?
Typically, those who favor more gun control argue that America’s “patchwork quilt” of rules and regulations help those who would do harm to slip through the net.
Furthermore, they contend that adding further barriers would prevent young men with evil intent from getting hold of lethal weaponry in the first instance.
But it is hard to see how such criticisms can apply here, in response to a crime that could have been carried out with a double-barreled shotgun from 1872.
During his presidency, President Obama has proposed three substantial changes to the legal status quo:
1) the imposition of mandatory instant background checks on each sale or transfer of a firearm, including those sales and transfers that are conducted entirely privately;
b) a hard limit on the capacity of commercially available magazines; and
c) a ban on so-called assault weapons. But none of these proposals even intersects with this case.
The shooter passed an instant background check in Minnesota;
his murders did not involve or require him to “spray” bullets or even to reload;
and he did not use an “assault weapon,” but a common handgun.
Elsewhere, the president and many in his party have expressed opposition to concealed carry in general and to “campus carry” in particular, usually on the (faulty) assumption that permitting private citizens to carry weapons on their persons will lead to more violence.
California, however, does not permit campus carry;
it is almost impossible to get hold of a carry permit in the city of Los Angeles;
and, the rules being what they are in the Golden State, the shooter was ineligible to carry outside of his home state anyway.
Which brings me back to my initial question:
When President Obama tweets, as he did earlier today, that Americans must “take action to prevent this from happening again,” what exactly does he mean?
I understand that he’s upset; everybody is upset.
I understand that he’s expressing frustration; that’s fine.
But I want specifics.
In free countries, laws are clear and they are limited; they have a specific purpose; and they can be understood and followed by laymen.
Which precise provisions does President Obama want to add to the legal code? And has he changed his mind? Thus far, his agenda has been limited to a set of proposals that don’t relate at all to this incident.
Read more at: What Law—Specifically—Would Have Prevented Yesterday's UCLA Shooting?
What Law—Specifically—Would Have Prevented Yesterday's UCLA Shooting?
Typically, those who favor more gun control argue that America’s “patchwork quilt” of rules and regulations help those who would do harm to slip through the net.
Furthermore, they contend that adding further barriers would prevent young men with evil intent from getting hold of lethal weaponry in the first instance.
But it is hard to see how such criticisms can apply here, in response to a crime that could have been carried out with a double-barreled shotgun from 1872.
During his presidency, President Obama has proposed three substantial changes to the legal status quo:
1) the imposition of mandatory instant background checks on each sale or transfer of a firearm, including those sales and transfers that are conducted entirely privately;
b) a hard limit on the capacity of commercially available magazines; and
c) a ban on so-called assault weapons. But none of these proposals even intersects with this case.
The shooter passed an instant background check in Minnesota;
his murders did not involve or require him to “spray” bullets or even to reload;
and he did not use an “assault weapon,” but a common handgun.
Elsewhere, the president and many in his party have expressed opposition to concealed carry in general and to “campus carry” in particular, usually on the (faulty) assumption that permitting private citizens to carry weapons on their persons will lead to more violence.
California, however, does not permit campus carry;
it is almost impossible to get hold of a carry permit in the city of Los Angeles;
and, the rules being what they are in the Golden State, the shooter was ineligible to carry outside of his home state anyway.
Which brings me back to my initial question:
When President Obama tweets, as he did earlier today, that Americans must “take action to prevent this from happening again,” what exactly does he mean?
I understand that he’s upset; everybody is upset.
I understand that he’s expressing frustration; that’s fine.
But I want specifics.
In free countries, laws are clear and they are limited; they have a specific purpose; and they can be understood and followed by laymen.
Which precise provisions does President Obama want to add to the legal code? And has he changed his mind? Thus far, his agenda has been limited to a set of proposals that don’t relate at all to this incident.
Read more at: What Law—Specifically—Would Have Prevented Yesterday's UCLA Shooting?
Last edited:
