Gun Control Group Admits: No Law Could Have Prevented Santa Barbara Shooting
Posted By Philip Hodges on Jun 4, 2014 | 1 Comment
That’s because laws don’t deter criminals. Laws should be punitive, not regulative. Politicians can try all they want to regulate people and their actions through legislation, and it won’t stop those for whom the laws are intended. Just look at the war on drugs. What an absolute failure. Or a success, depending on how you look at it.
Or look at gun control laws. Those who don’t want any trouble abide by the laws, often at their own peril. Criminals, by default, don’t care about regulative laws, and so any law prohibiting them from possessing a gun is irrelevant. In fact, much like drug dealers, violent criminals depend on those prohibitive gun laws to be able to act more efficiently on their criminal desires.
Even gun control proponents – in their more honest moments – admit this. Dave Workman, the senior editor over at The Gun Mag, reported:
The head of Washington State’s most vocal gun control organization admitted during a recent interview with Seattle’s KVI radio that the killing spree in Santa Barbara, Calif., couldn’t have been prevented by any gun control law.
Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, admitted to KVI’s John Carlson that, “California has some of the strictest laws in the country on gun violence. I don’t think that there’s any law that would have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara.”
Yet Fascitelli’s organization – while not sponsoring the measure – appears to be supporting Initiative 594 launched by the Seattle-based Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR), an 18-month-old, and well-financed group formed to press for so-called “universal background checks.”
I-594 is an 18-page gun control measure that is opposed by the National Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and several other gun rights groups. CCRKBA is part of a broad coalition pushing an alternative measure, Initiative 591, which requires any background checks done in the state to comply with a uniform national standard. It also prohibits government gun confiscation without due process.
California imposes a “universal background check” for all gun transactions. In the days following the Isla Vista slayings—in which three people were fatally stabbed and three others were gunned down by a 22-year-old man who then took his own life after trading shots with local sheriff’s deputies—gun rights activists in the Pacific Northwest have repeatedly noted that I-594’s proposal mirrors existing California law. It did not prevent the killings, as proponents have been intimating it might.
At least three times during the discussion on KVI, Fascitelli reaffirmed that, “I don’t think there are any laws that would have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara.”
So, if no law could have prevented what Elliot Rodger did, then why do these gun control groups continue to use that incident and every other mass shooting to lobby for more gun restrictions? Obviously, they’re not going to save lives. The push for more and more gun control has never been about saving lives. It’s been about disarming the American populace, bit by bit, until there’s nothing left to take.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/5983/gun-control-group-admits-law-prevented-santa-barbara-shooting/#mq4BqKGMhwAJ6D4E.99