Another mass-casualty shooting, this time in Southern California. One of the shooters worked with many of those he killed, so "workplace violence", right? Umm, maybe. But he was also of the Muslim faith / political persuasion, had recently traveled to Saudi Arabia to pick up his bride (the second shooter), and started growing a beard upon his return, so "Islamic terrorism", right? Umm, maybe.
There are lots of unanswered questions, but regardless, the call for more gun control will intensify once again. The thing most apparent to me is that, even if the "gun controllers" get the new laws they want, they will still be disappointed.
Those who buy guns legally (with background checks) will still do so. (FYI, the guns the Cali shooters used were all purchased legally.) Those who buy guns without background checks will still do so. Those are the guns that will be used in most crimes, making the owners of those guns criminals. They're already criminals, so to them, what's the big deal breaking one more law?
Let's assume you could require background checks on all gun sales from this point forward, whether from a gun dealer or from an individual, and make it stick (which you can't). There are already somewhere between 200 and 300 MILLION guns floating around out there right now. Who owns those? Have they been background checked? This is reality, folks.
If the gun controllers think they will see any appreciable difference by requiring universal background checks in 6 months, or even 6 years, they are simply being delusional. It will likely take many decades for enough guns to be sold with checks to new, properly vetted owners to see any difference at all.
The reality is this: If there was ever an issue that will cause otherwise fine, upstanding citizens to resort to "civil disobedience", restricting their Second Amendment rights to "keep and bear arms" is it. In their minds, whether you agree or not, the Bill of Rights to our Constitution says it's legal to own guns, and as the Supreme Court has agreed, they wouldn't be breaking any law if they resisted. You can argue until you're blue about the definition of "well armed militia", they won't care.
If you make new laws that in effect outlaw certain types of guns, you've just opened up a whole new field for organized crime to capitalize on. It didn't work with alcohol back in the 1920's and 30's, and it won't work with guns today. Too many people already have them, and too many others want them.
So IMHO even if the gun controllers do get their wish, the effect on the number of future mass shootings will be virtually non-existent. If they want to try, go ahead. They will just be pissing into the wind. Don't expect any miracle results.
Please don't shoot the messenger.
S
