Obviously, California Mass Murder Means Typical Calls For “Gun Control”

Never let a good crisis go to waste

(Politico) Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Sunday he would urge Senate leaders to reconsider tougher gun control and mental health measures in the wake of this weekend’s deadly shootings near the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” the Connecticut Democrat said the recent shootings reminded him of the 2012 shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. after which “it seemed like we were on the verge of legislation that would stop the madness.”

Those measures, which would include tougher background checks on gun sales and certain mental health initiatives, ultimately failed in Congress. But Blumenthal said he would urge lawmakers to “reconfigure” the bills to focus more on the mental health provisions, where he said there could be some agreement with Republicans.

You can bet that the “reconfiguration” would still include all the restrictive measures which essentially impact law abiding gun owners, and barely impact, if impact at all, the criminals that use them. The problem here is that more mental health provisions could impact the privacy of citizens. Furthermore, there is a danger that the mental health provisions could be used in a political manner. And Congress has not been known lately for passing specific, targeted legislation. Instead, that legislation has seen the details left in the hands of political appointees and career bureaucrats.

And then there’s Mark O’Mara, who says he owns a gun and wants gun control

We have a problem with gun violence in this country. I think this much is not in dispute. The real debate is this: What do we do about it? Unfortunately, most answers to this question involve greater governmental regulation and intrusion into our lives.

Americans are fiercely independent, sometimes to a fault, and we bristle at any effort seen as trampling our inalienable rights. But the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution have never been unfettered. Each amendment in the Bill of Rights has spawned a legacy of case law that interprets, defines, refines and restricts our basic freedoms based on the values and needs of the people at the time. (snip)

We’re free from government intrusion as long as we are not doing something illegal or something that would negatively affect our community. (I can live at peace in my home; I cannot do so with a meth lab.)

Yet, heavy handed gun control would impact those who are not doing anything illegal.

A gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is the perfect, unassailable instrument for self-defense and for the protection of one’s family. To tell someone who is acting reasonably and rationally that they have to give up that right is unfathomable to the responsible gun owner. That’s why gun rights advocates have such a negative response to any perceived restrictions on gun ownership: They know, without question, that they will only use their weapon properly.

But all too often guns are used improperly, without justification, with tragic results. While we have laws preventing convicted felons from legally owning guns, we live in a reality where even properly maintained guns wind up in the wrong hands, where the overly free commerce of firearms virtually assures that some of them will be used by people with criminal intentions.

Gun rights advocates often see a comment like that as an argument for further restriction on their use of weapons, but that’s not the way I intend it. I myself am a responsible gun owner. I believe in the right to justified self-defense. I also believe that reasonable restrictions to assure that only law-abiding citizens can purchase firearms better prevents over-restriction of our Second Amendment.

Mr. O’Mara fails to make any recommendations as to what gun control measures he wants. He seems to be saying quite a bit throughout his opinion piece that the rights of law abiding citizens is super awesome, but, hey, more gun control. Let’s not forget that California has some of the strongest gun control measures in not only the country, but in the world. Yet, it’s not just nuts like Elliot Rogers using a gun for murder, but the gangs that are rampant within lots of areas of the state of California. Massive, restrictive gun control only stops the law abiding from obtaining guns, taking away the means to defend themselves.

Let’s also not forget that Rogers used a knife and his auto. Yet, no one is calling for restrictions on knives and cars, are they? Why does it seem that there is more gun violence within areas that have the most gun restrictions? Why is it that more people are killed with hammers than guns?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Obviously, California Mass Murder Means Typical Calls For “Gun Control””

  1. Jeffery says:

    Jeez…

    “Let’s also not forget that Rogers used a knife and his auto. Yet, no one is calling for restrictions on knives and cars, are they?”

    How many murders are committed each year with automobiles? 2? 10? And there are no restrictions on autos??? Let that sink in for a moment, genius. Seat belts, air bags, mufflers, child restraints, rollover protection, door integrity, age limits for drivers, driver’s licenses, DWI, DUI, traffic cops in every state county and city, speed limits, catalytic converters, stop signs, driver’s tests, child door locks, internal trunk releases, mileage standards, weight limits, seat belt usage laws, impaired driver laws, etc. There are at least 1.2 gazillion restrictions on automobiles!

    In 2010, the FBI reported 1700 murders with a sharp instrument. That same year there were 8775 murders committed with a gun, mostly handguns. Much like an automobile, knives and other sharpened objects have uses other than killing. We cut up onions, skin squirrels, filet o’ fish, carve ‘I Luv Becky’ in a tree, split logs, butcher a pig, gut a catfish, chop carrots potatoes celery for stew, carve a turkey etc.

    Handguns are for killing people and for helping Tea Party men get erections. Yet, I do NOT support bans on handguns, but I do support reasonable background checks like those the NRA and Tea Party oppose.

    “Why does it seem that there is more gun violence within areas that have the most gun restrictions?”

    You don’t present any evidence and you use the weasel word “seem”, indicating it’s your opinion. But let’s play along. Perhaps the restrictions were enacted in response to the violence.

    “Why is it that more people are killed with hammers than guns?”

    According to the FBI, in 2010, 540 Americans were clubbed to death (including with hammers) and 8775 were shot to death. 8775 is a much greater number than 540. Would you care to retract that lie and give your hapless readers a break? Note too, that hammers are used to build houses, barns and fences. Baseball bats are used to hit home runs. Golf clubs for making holes in one. Handguns are used to kill people and to assuage the terror under which Tea Party men live their lives.

  2. CavalierX says:

    “Let’s also not forget that Rogers used a knife and his auto. Yet, no one is calling for restrictions on knives and cars, are they?”

    That’s what I was thinking. Where are the calls for knife and car control? It makes me sick when the Leftists jump into action to use a terrible event like this to push their political agenda. Just sick.

  3. Better_Late_Than_Gumballs says:

    wow.. Jeffery started using his meds again I see. A bit of reason and logic? We’ll take it wherever we can get it from the likes of J.

    Exactly right. We are not seeing any legislation barring or controlling the use of bats, pipes, knives, TVs, glass, rope, and gasoline. If we are serious about saving people no matter what.. we need to control those items.

    We’re free from government intrusion as long as we are not doing something illegal

    WHolly incorrect. Our lives are severely curtailed and impacted by gov’t regulations in every single activity we do. And every where we go.

    Again, some people are too stupid to breathe.

  4. john says:

    Can we haz RPGs also ? aren’t they also “arms”

  5. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Do you realize that if the restrictive regulations on guns were passed, then you would not be able to purchase a hand gun, for any reason? If you are not armed in our society at this time, then you are basically a victim. There is a lawless society in our country that few people are aware of and have no idea of its impact. The only way to keep yourself and your family safe is to be armed and know what to do.

  6. Better_Late_Than_Gumballs says:

    Yes, and by the literal interpretation of the Constitution, we are free to exercise our right to purchase any form of arms.

    Especially if the police are allowed to use military weaponry.

  7. Jeffery says:

    david,

    I am not against gun ownership. I have two gun safes with about 20 rifles, shotguns and a couple of pistols.

    Does every American, no matter how deranged, have a right to a firearm? I don’t think so.

    Most normal Americans do not live with the state of abject, wet-your-pants fear that the typical paranoid Tea Partier experiences daily.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Gumballs,

    You’re dumb as a box of rocks…

  9. Better_Late_Than_Gumballs says:

    Notice that J continues to obfuscate and ignore the dares posed to him challenging him on his statements.

  10. Jeffery says:

    Teach asks: “Why is it that more people are killed with hammers than guns?”

    This was clearly false yesterday and still clearly false today. Please correct it.

    The odious jimhoft never corrects his falsehoods but covers them in a blizzard of new posts. You do not post enough (thankfully) to use this trick. You need to correct the falsehood.

  11. Better_Late_Than_Gumball says:

    prove that it is incorrect first

  12. Jeffery says:

    Gumballs,

    Teach should prove it correct before he asserts it, right?

    But according to the FBI, in 2010, 540 Americans were clubbed to death (including with hammers) and 8775 were shot to death. 8775 is a much greater number than 540.

    Fewer than 540 Americans were killed with hammers. 8775 were killed with guns.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

    Is that proof enough for you? I am stunned that anyone believes more people in the US die from hammer blows than firearms.

    Why would you trust a blogger that would knowingly type such a thing and not correct it?

    So much of what the far-right believes to be true is not.

    Next he will type that the CO2 we add to the atmosphere is not causing the Earth to warm.

  13. Jeffery says:

    Bueller? Bueller? Teach? Gumballs?

  14. Better_Late_Than_Gumball says:

    Very good J. When you back up your assertions with links to sites with data, we can all then have something to discuss, instead of one person ranting that they are right and others are wrong. just because they say so.

    Thank you for posting the link to your data.

    According to that link, you are correct: more people were murdered over the years from firearms that with blunt objects.

    Still not sure what your point is?
    How many people die from car crashes?

    In 2012, 33,561 people were killed in the estimated 5,615,000 police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes; 2,362,000 people were injured; and 3,950,000 crashes resulted in property damage only. Compared to 2011, this is a 3.3-percent increase in the number of fatalities, and a 5.2-percent increase in the number of police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes, a 6.5-percent increase in the number of people injured, and a 4.6-percent increase in crashes resulting in property damage. An average of 92 people died each day in motor vehicle crashes in 2012 — one every 16 minutes.

    I think it is time to put car control measures on the books. Clearly cars are more deadly than firearms. We know who owns them, where they are, and in many cases where they are right now, but yet people are still dying from them.

    Isn’t it time we ban the car?
    (yes that is high sarcasm)

  15. Jeffery says:

    Gumballs,

    My point was simple. In an attempt to trivialize gun violence in the US, Teach said that more people are murdered with hammers than with guns.

    Stop being so silly. I’ve explained why we tolerate deaths from automobile accidents (NB – accidents!). If we banned trucks and cars, our economy and lives would grind to a halt. If we banned handguns (which I do not advocate)… there would be a trivial effect on the economy and life.

    Firearms and automobiles are responsible for approximately the same number of deaths per year. Most auto related deaths are accidents. Most firearm deaths are intentional (murders and suicides).

    We heavily regulate autos and trucks, their use and their users to reduce injuries and mortalities. Conservatives oppose any attempt to make guns and their use safer.

  16. Better_Late_Than_Gumball says:

    If we banned handguns (which I do not advocate)… there would be a trivial effect on the economy and life.

    Yet, that trivializes the lives of innocents.

    Firearms and automobiles are responsible for approximately the same number of deaths per year.

    Wrong. My link proves it

    Most auto related deaths are accidents.

    And that is besides the point.

    Most firearm deaths are intentional (murders and suicides).

    again, besides the point.
    deaths are deaths.

    as obama said, if one child’s death can be prevented.. shouldn’t we try?

  17. Jeffery says:

    “Firearms and automobiles are responsible for approximately the same number of deaths per year.

    Wrong. My link proves it”

    You seem to have hard time with numbers.

    Your link states that about 33,000 Americans died from automobile accidents in 2012, but did not say how many died from guns.

    According to the CDC there were 31,672 firearms deaths in 2010.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

    I consider those numbers about the same. Apology accepted.

    Trucks and automobiles have significant societal value, firearms not so much. Americans kill as many intentionally with firearms of limited value, as are accidentally killed by the cornerstone of our economy, transportation. We have successfully cut automobile deaths several fold by regulating drivers, autos, roads and behaviors.

    I noticed you constructed a strawman by attributing a desire of your opponents to “ban guns”.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10886 access attempts in the last 7 days.