Charles C. W. Cooke:
Yesterday, at UCLA, a Ph.D. student shot his professor dead. Not too long afterwards, he turned the gun on himself.
As soon as the story hit the news, the usual suspects began cranking themselves up. Americans, they said, need to “do something.” It was time, they argued, for “more laws.” And the NRA? It was, of course, to blame.
Forgive me for being a broken record, but I have some questions in response to these reactions: Namely, “what something?”; “which laws?”; and “what, specifically, did the NRA do wrong here?” Rolled into one, these congeal into a single, simple inquiry: “What law — specifically — would have prevented yesterday’s shooting?”
I ask because, absent the total ban on firearms that gun-control advocates insist that they don’t covet, it is not at all obvious which rules would have stopped the perpetrator from carrying out his plan. According to the Los Angeles Police Department, the shooter bought a 9mm handgun legally in Minnesota, passing a background check in the process; then, gun in hand, hekilled a woman in that state; and, finally, he drove with his guns to California, where he killed both his professor and himself.
In the process, he both obeyed and broke a number of existing laws. In Minnesota, he followed the purchasing rules to the letter, and, because he had no criminal record, he was rewarded for his fealty. But after that moment he resolved to ignore whatever rules got in his way. In both Minnesota and California he violated the statutes that prohibit gun owners from carrying their weapons without a permit; at UCLA he violated a rule issued in September of 2015 that prohibits gun owners from carrying firearms onto campus; and, rather obviously, he violated the flat-out prohibition on murder that obtains in all 50 states. He was, in other words, entirely happy to follow the rules when it suited him, and entirely happy to break them when it suited him. He was, like most shooters, not much interested in the sanctity of the law.
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.
Gotta love this line:
“He was, in other words, entirely happy to follow the rules when it suited him, and entirely happy to break them when it suited him.”
It also applies PERFECTLY to Hillary Clinton.
And note the attempts to mute his muslim character, as the MSM hoels about the need for more gun control.
Moonbeam and Newsom will use this to push even more useless gun control laws we all know now stupid these demac-RATS are
@Spurwing Plover: Maybe they could make a law that it is illegal to shoot anyone. No, wait, I think they already have that law. Maybe a law that prohibits anyone from going into any space where another person is. Maybe a law that requires everyone to wear bullet proof clothing and protection for their entire body. Yea, that’s it. Uh, better make that fireproof also. I’ll bet we could actually get the Dimorats to pass that law.
As the left convolutes the gun control argument, pointing to yet another tragedy and using it to promote a failing political agenda and recommending MORE rules, regulations, restrictions and laws which do not even remotely address what happened.
The strategy is clear even through the leftist media attempting to convert the Indian Muslim into a white guy, presumably a Trump-supporting, NRA member Tea Partier.
What it all boils down to is that in no way, form or fashion is public safety a concern of the left (as is further evident in how they promote violent “protest” to Trump appearances). All they care about is their political agenda.