Replay: "San Bernardino shooting gives gun rights activists new ammo"
(too old to reply)
California Scheming
2021-11-29 22:59:51 UTC
Following Wednesday’s shooting rampage that left 14 people dead
and 21 injured at a social services center in San Bernardino,
California, a number of gun rights activists have taken aim at
the Golden State’s gun control laws, which – despite being some
of the strictest in the nation – failed to prevent the tragedy
from happening.

Sean Davis ? @seanmdav
If California's gun control regime isn't strict enough for you,
just be honest and admit what you want is a repeal of the 2nd
7:03 PM - 2 Dec 2015
190 190 Retweets 198 198 likes

U.S. Nationalist @BryonWine
California has very strict gun laws. How could the San Bernadino
shooting possibly happen? What say you, gun control idiots?
4:53 AM - 3 Dec 2015
5 5 Retweets 8 8 likes

Jenn Jacques @JennJacques
California has strict gun laws.
Criminals don't follow laws.
That's how gun control works:
Bad guys get guns, good guys get killed.
3:42 PM - 2 Dec 2015
255 255 Retweets 290 290 likes

Many questions about the massacre have yet to be answered, such
as what the motive was and how exactly the two suspects – 28-
year-old Syed Farook and 27-year-old Tashfeen Malik – obtained
their weapons. Both were killed in a shootout with police.

One thing remains clear, though: Gun rights activists consider
Wednesday’s shooting evidence that gun safety regulations don’t

The narrative cuts to the heart of what gun control advocates
have been trying to accomplish in recent years – that is,
tightening firearm restrictions at the state level in the
absence of congressional action. By most accounts, their efforts
have been successful. Since 2013, when the then-Democratic
controlled Senate failed to advance a bill that would have
expanded background checks for gun purchases, six states have
closed gun-sale loopholes – bringing to 18 the total number of
states that require background checks for some or all private
sales, and prompting many gun control advocates to champion the
arrival of a tipping point on the issue.

Through this state-by-state approach to enacting nationwide
reform, California has served as a kind of guiding light. The
nation’s most populous state already has some of the toughest
gun laws, requiring prospective buyers to produce a Firearm
Safety Certificate and sit through a 10-day waiting period
before purchasing any kind of gun. The state also operates an
expensive program to track down and seize illegally-owned guns
from felons, domestic violence offenders, drug abusers, or
people who have been committed for mental illness. Additionally,
a 1999 law bans the manufacture, import or sale of any
semiautomatic rifle, pistol or magazine that can hold more than
10 rounds of ammunition – a standard that was at the time
considerably stricter than the existing federal Assault Weapons
Ban, which expired in 2004.

California could go even further in its gun restrictions.
Earlier this year, the state’s Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom,
who is running for governor, unveiled a sweeping proposal for
next year’s ballot that would make California the first state in
the nation to implement background checks for ammunition sales,
not just gun sales. If adopted, the ballot initiative would also
require gun owners to get rid of their large-capacity magazines
– the manufacture and sale (but the possession) of which are
already prohibited under the 1999 law.

With such a stellar record on gun control, California seems like
the least likely place for a mass shooting. So how, then, did it
happen? And does it mean gun control is a lost cause?

Not quite.

The data still shows that states with tighter gun control laws
have fewer gun deaths.

And while it may be true that “California has good laws,” as
Ladd Everitt, communications director of the Coalition to Stop
Gun Violence, told MSNBC, it doesn’t mean that California is
“immune to gun violence.”
No state is, or probably ever could be.

President Obama touched on this point in his initial reaction to
Wednesday’s shooting. “The one thing we do know is that we have
a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no
parallel anywhere else in the world,” Obama told CBS News as the
shooting was still unfolding. “And there are some steps that we
could take – not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings
– but to improve the odds that they don’t happen as frequently.”

Another important thing to keep in mind is that being the
toughest state in America on guns isn’t exactly saying much. As
Bustle’s S.E. Smith pointed out, “while California law may seem
extremely strict to some, it’s highly loose when compared with
gun control laws in other nations, like New Zealand, Japan, and

“The problem isn’t that the laws were too strict, and that
shooters would acquire guns by any means possible and thus that
we should give up on gun control altogether,” wrote Smith. “It’s
that the laws are patently not strict enough.”

Newsom acknowledged California’s shortcomings on gun control
when he introduced his ballot initiative last October. “There’s
been a gap between perception and reality,” he told MSNBC at the
time, “the perception being that California is on the cutting
edge of gun safety legislation when, in fact, there are a number
of areas where we have fallen behind.”

The bottom line, however, is that there are still too many
unknowns in this case to determine if stricter gun laws could
have prevented it. Officials said Thursday the two handguns and
two long guns used in the massacre were purchased legally, but
from where? And by whom? If the suspects used pipe bombs, which
were found in their home and at the scene, instead of firearms,
gun control surely wouldn’t have mattered. But that doesn’t mean
it needs to be another casualty.

Gun Policy, Gun Violence, Guns, San Bernardino shooting and

Just Wondering
2021-11-29 23:53:43 UTC
Post by California Scheming
News flash, December 2016 was SIX YEARS AGO, Mr. Van Winkle.