"You mean criminals don't follow gun laws?"
California has universal background checks, gun registration requirements, gun confiscation laws, a ten-day waiting period on gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a “good cause” requirement for concealed carry, and a high-profile shooting that garners national attention two or three times a year.
The latest occurred on June 14 in San Francisco, where a UPS employee pulled out a gun during “a company meeting” and opened fire, killing three innocents.
Moms Demand Action was quick to post news of the incident on its Facebook page–another high-profile shooting it can use to push for more gun control. However, to be honest, the only gun controls California has yet to pass are a ban on semi-automatic guns and/or an outright ban on gun ownership.
A ban on semi-automatic handguns would do nothing to slow crime, as it would only mean that criminals would have semi-automatic guns, and law-abiding citizens would not. Moreover, the Fresno gunman, who attacked in April, killed his victims with a revolver, which is more than sufficient as a murder weapon when one lives in a Democrat-run state that goes out of its way to prevent law-abiding citizens from being armed for self-defense.
We realize from the Chicago example that an all-out ban on the possession of handguns of any kind correlates with even higher murders than we see in that city now. In short, bans empower criminals and terrorists while making the vulnerable more vulnerable.
So despite almost every gun control imaginable, a UPS employee opened fired on colleagues during a meeting, and we now know the guns he used were stolen.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the attacker had two guns on his person, one of which had been stolen in Utah and one in Napa, California.
Read more here.