I wonder again about the efficacy of California style gun control that the nation should embrace.
There have been four mass murders so far this year. Two in Illinois, another gun control poster child where this violence is supposedly banned enough, and one in Texas make up the other three. The California incident was the only one in which domestic violence/familicide was not the root. Six bodies have been found dumped by a roadside, it is unknown if they were shot on the scene or at another location and dumped.
The most lethal incident, Illinois, with 8 dead and 1 injury has the offender as a prior felon in possession of a handgun. He killed several members of his family and shot a man in the leg who was unloading groceries nearby, after fleeing to Texas he killed himself before he could be taken into police custody.
So where are all the events not being stopped by the lack of gun regulations? Where are these extreme events being so permitted but their disallowance in California, New York, and Illinois has stopped them?
It seems to me as if the rule, no matter how allegedly permissive or restrictive a respective politico declares it, holds no more weight than a violator is willing to grant it. Therefore, none.
Background checks, capacity bans, permit lists, permitted gun lists, waiting periods, all of it California has and yet they have the most mass shootings and one of the clear worst killings this year thus far, how? How is Illinois with their FOID cards the deadliest state for mass murders 29 days into the year? How? It is against the law?
It is almost as if the socio-economic calculus cannot be so simply defined as making murder extra illegal or trying to ban a certain bullet count from the hands of murders. Weird.
Carry on, gun control. Carry on… I guess. Each time the rule fails it just proves the points again.