What do you think of this editorial?

Posted 1 week.

4 Comments

  • Jeff - 6 days ago

    What about the 5 police officers that were inside the bar at the time of the shooting? California law makes it illegal for them to be armed. If they had been armed and already inside it is very likely they would have stopped the shooter much earlier.

  • Byron - 1 week ago

    Criminal laws, including gun laws, merely define what is a crime and the punishment that results when the law is broken, the suspect caught, and the prosecution obtains a guilty verdict or admission. Criminal laws do not PREVENT violent crime. The only thing that repels s a violent attack is for the intended victim to possess the means to sufficiently resist the attack at the time it is perpetrated. The push for gun control after a mass killing is an emotional response to a calculated act. Only someone making a purely emotional argument will believe for a second that a criminal intent on violating our most capital laws against murder, carrying the penalty of life in prison or death, will be deterred by the threat of some lesser gun law penalty. Stop voting for politicians who make false promises of safety with each gun control law being pushed. California, Chicago, DC...all have found that those promises lead to disappointment. Gun control is the lazy politician's out when he/she can't, or won't, address the causes of violence which require the marshaling of more resources and effort than merely passing some piece of paper legislation and then walk away from it....Sorry, society's ills aren't so easily addressed. Gun laws won't make a bit of difference, because criminals don't obey the law. The 2nd Amendment is not going away, the U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirming that the right to bear arms is an individual right is not going away, and the 400 million guns in this nation aren't going away. Stop wasting time on fool's errands, roll up the sleeves, and focus on the root causes of violence. You can keep your symbolic attempts to use the criminal law as a prophylactic against violence. I will be happy to stay in Idaho, where we have one of the lowest murder rates in the nation and some of the loosest gun laws, I certainly don't relish Idaho being forced by some federal edict to duplicate the "disarm the populace to leave them to the tender mercies of society's predators" condition that invariably results from implementing draconian gun laws in the U.S. I prefer the balance of power in the good citizens' favor.

  • Marc - 1 week ago

    As a law enforcement officer, I strongly disagree. I do not fear an armed citizen, I fear a place where a criminal has nothing to stand in his way except law enforcement, we can't be everywhere. California already has strict gun control, and the only thing that did was keep law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

  • Bill - 1 week ago

    What you fail to mention in your article was that in in the Thousand Oaks incident, or Virginia tech incident, the person used a handgun. Semi automatic rifles, and rifles of any type included account for less than 3% of all gun related deaths. If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use a truck and ram it into the building. Most law enforcement will disagree that stricter gun control will in anyway reduce gun violence. I1639 in Washington was opposed by 4 law enforcement agencies in that state. The problem is that existing laws would've prevented many mass shootings. But the they are not utilized correctly. The insistence to add more laws and restrictions is just adding water to a leaky ship.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment