Isla Vista shooting prompts new gun control proposals in California

May 30, 2014
Elliot Rodger

Elliot Rodger

Following last week’s Isla Vista shooting rampage, California lawmakers have made new proposals aimed at removing guns from the hands of the mentally ill. [CBS News]

Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner and Santa Barbara Assemblyman Das Williams introduced a bill Tuesday that would allow concerned relatives, neighbors and friends, as well as law enforcement officers, to seek restraining orders on an individual’s right to possess firearms. The bill would allow the reporting party to petition a judge to temporarily remove a person’s firearms while the court determines whether or not the individual is mentally competent.

The firearm restraining order would last until a court determines that the gun owner in question has mental competence. The bill would only limit someone’s ability to possess guns, not other weapons, like knives.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg also proposed this week the idea of requiring law enforcement officers to perform firearms searches while on welfare visits. A firearms search might involve asking roommates, neighbors and relatives whether the person being examined possesses guns.

“There is a lot we can do to prevent these kinds of horrific events in the future,” Steinberg said.


Loading...
jarhead

OH NO they gonna come take my genuine LOUSVILLE SLUGGER FROM MY FRON DOOR


achillesheal

Laws written “in response to” are for PR and rarely effect real change. If an individual is prepared to commit murder, they will most certainly have little concern about purchasing and carrying firearms illegally even if the “legal” firearms they have are taken away.


Restricting purchase and removing firearms from mentally incompetent people is not a bad premise. The question is, will it make any difference?


LameCommenter

Don’t erase the freedoms of tens of millions of Californians because an occasional lunatic with known, observable, self-declared 5150 W&I delusions is missed/overlooked by the cops. He’s the poster boy why gun control laws won’t stop these statistically very rare homicides.


Pelican1

Well, call them rare, call them occasional, but the fact is mass murders involving firearms have tripled in recent years. In most cases, a severely deranged individual has been able to acquire a firearm(s) most often legally with tragic results.

Something has to be done to keep the 300,000,000 + guns out of the hands of those who would commit these atrocities. One child is too many. There are NO “acceptable” losses.

Something has to be done to control and regulate firearms.


Robert1

Another Mass Shooting, Another Psychiatric Drug? Federal Investigation Long Overdue http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/the-aurora-colorado-tragedy-another-senseless-shooting-another-psychotropic-drug/

REGULATE THE PEOPLE THAT NEED REGULATING, not the law law abiding citizens.


SamLouis

Gun-related “mass murders” (loosely defined as 4 or more murders not including the murderer) account for a tiny percentage of all gun-related murders in the USA. I find it deeply troubling that this Isla Vista horror can make international news while weekly (!!) killings in places like Chicago, Detroit and New Orleans often don’t even rate state-level coverage.


You speak as if controlling those 300M firearms is possible. It’s not. Do you understand that criminals will always have guns (or knives, etc?) You speak as if controlling them is the solution to a hugely complex problem. You’re wrong. Efforts at gun control have failed and will continue to fail.


You need to face reality and reverse your failed line of thinking. Rather than attempt (and fail) to “keep the 300,000,000 + guns out of the hands of those who would commit these atrocities” we need how to figure out how to keep the hands of those who would commit these atrocities free of guns, knives, machetes, steering wheels, etc.


The difference is subtle but profound and people like you need to realize the difference. Emotional mantras like “One child is too many. There are NO “acceptable” losses.” do nothing to make things safer. All it does it make some feel good.


Pelican1

OK…I get it. Lets do NOTHING. It’s the American way.


SamLouis

Do you honestly believe you can sell that here? Really?


No one here said to “do nothing.” That’s just silly emotionalism. What a growing number refuse to do is something (gun control) that has proven not to work.


Do you get that? It’s not a matter of gun control being efficacious but resisted. It’s not as if gun control would help solve this problem if there just wasn’t so much resistance. It’s because gun control DOES NOT WORK! It’s been proven again and again! Do you understand that, have you studied the data or do you purposely remain ignorant of the facts?


zaphod

We can do it !


Pelican1

Please explain in detail and don’t forget to include statistics and examples of gun control in America, and how it has NOT worked. Be specific now. Cite examples.

Now explain how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of ALL those Americans who are mentally ill, unstable, unbalanced, violent, abusive and would turn to a firearm as a problem solver….without the need for gun control.

The idea that I have the blood of all the children and victims of gun violence on my hands is as absurd as your thinking. You should be ashamed.


Slowerfaster

This whole ‘gun rights’ issue is a false dichotomy …the corollary to the oft mentioned Benjamin Franklin quote: “Those who surrender freedom for security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one”.


This is because the frame put forward is NOT for the freedom of the people …the collective, but for the ‘freedom’ of a faction / groups of individuals: the corporate gun lobby and their minions; that would outweigh and trample on the freedom of everyone else not included in their clan.


A trade of security for all, for the ‘freedom’ of the few is just as bad a bargain …even worse IMO, as it would be the foundation for a feudal state.


SamLouis

Do you actually know what “false dichotomy” means?


Slowerfaster

Your even posing the question makes me quite sure that you do not, and probably never will.


SamLouis

Nice tap-dance but no sale. You clearly have no idea what “false dichotomy” means. Try Googling it!


racket

Half of the victims were killed with a knife. Why is this type of murder weapon being ignored?


Mike

Maybe it is Slowerfaster’s ‘corporate knife lobby’?


ryguy

What is the time period between when the gun is taken away and the judge makes a decision? You know our justice system moves so fast. Don’t believe me ask Kelly Gearhart


SGT D

Being retired Army. And knowing very well, my freedom since i fought for it, all I can say is let them try to take my weapons. So many folks say the civilians weapons to protect against our military power is silly, but I say you haven’t been to Iraq, or also don’t realize that majority of military is very pro second amendment and will not go against their families. You just need to get these Nazis and wimps out of Sacramento and Washington. Did you know Feinstien said our recent veterans should not have arms, because we are dangerous? Don’t believe me, then look it up. Good bye Nazifornia…. This sounds more like liberal witch hunt to me….Guilty and cannot prove your innocents.


ConfedOfDunces

Guilty until proven innocent?


info

Sure sounds that way.


I find it interesting (3) deaths were from a knife and (3) from a firearm but where’s the outrage over the knife? Why is the most preventable causes of death (smoking, overweight, alcohol) still legal and yet we are trying to ban firearms, ammunition, etc. and not a Twinkie?


We are asked not to judge Muslims over a few finatics (which is good), but at the same time judging millions of lawful gunowners? Hypocrisy.


If your not putting forth effort to solve the most preventable diseases in America then I don’t want to hear your case about more gun control.


racket

“We are asked not to judge Muslims over a few finatics (which is good), but at the same time judging millions of lawful gunowners? Hypocrisy.”


Quoting for truth.


dogeatdog

I believe Elliot had purchased the guns he owned legally, and he was under the care of a shrink.


I have to wonder why the family did not have him committed under a 5150 if he was getting so bad, and did they know he owned guns?


As someone who has a family member who is bipolar, I know how difficult it was to have law enforcement commit her when she was very much a threat to herself or others. Also being a person who suffers from depression them self, but not bipolar,I wonder how easy would it be for the police to come search my house.


I don’t currently own a gun, but I have in the past, and I am not sure more guns laws are needed. I think we need to start a conversation about mental illness and stop making it such a taboo subject. We need to have treatment places more affordable and accessible to those who have mental illness who want help.


I think the shrink took to long to say Elliot was in a melt down and he was dangerous. I think the police should have watched the you tube video. I think the family needed to be more pro active because I think they knew their son was getting worse or behaving different.


I think this was a very sad thing that happened and my heart goes out to those who lost a loved one.


And for all you who want to keep your guns and want to rant about your 2nd amendment rights. Well when that law was enacted, the gun people owned was a black powder fire arm. So maybe we should do a law that says you can own a black powder fire arm and therefore defend yourself or hunt and that would cover your 2nd amendment rights.


I am not sure if police searching a home or taking guns would stop this upsetting trend we seem to have going on. There are still knives, bats, bombs and other sorts of weapons that are still dangerous and can kill. I think once again this is a knee jerk reaction to a tragic accident, and if we actually enforced ALL the gun laws we have on the books things might change.


I am not against people owning guns, I am against a gun that can shot 20 bullets in a second or two. I don’t know a hunter that needs to discharge multiple bullets in quick succession to take an animal down. I don’t think you need to have a semi automatic to protect yourself, those guns are for killing in mass such as our military personnel need to use. And I know I am pissing off NRA people with that statement, but that is how I feel and I think that is how most people feel.


Again my heart goes out to all of those affected by the actions of this person.


SpeakTruth

“20 bullets in a second or two”? The maximum magazine capacity you can buy in California is 10 rounds. Can you reload that fast and still get off 20 rounds in a second or two? Even if you had a military-issued M16 (which this kid didn’t), the cyclic rate could barely pull half of that in full auto. A 10 round magazine would be out in less than a second (.86 sec).


Your opinion is based on assumptions and ignorance!


Guns aren’t for hunters, they are for preserving the security of a free state. And the armaments of the people should be on-par or better than their government’s.


Slowerfaster

“And the armaments of the people should be on-par or better than their

government’s.”


How many tanks and nuclear bombs do you plan to buy and have on your premises / person ?


aft50s

Slowerfaster,


Are you interested in selling yours?


I’m in the market for a Sherman or a T-26


kayaknut

“How many tanks and nuclear bombs do you plan to buy”…. all of them, they are bought with taxpayer money. I just let the government borrow them, haha


Bert

Im pro gun. Im pro background check. Im against mentally ill or unstable people with guns. Im against those who are proven to be violent to be allowed to possess firearms. I understand and agree with thoe who say it is their 2nd amendment right to possess firearms. But that same group of people who say it is necessary for them to bear arms in order to protect themselves from Government if say the Government declared war on the people, those folks must be high. With your legally possessed firearms, AR-15’s, thousands of rounds of ammunition, etc.,how are you going to defend yourself against tanks, jets, bombs, RPG’s, highly trained soldiers, battleships, and all the technologically advanced warfare that the US government has at their disposal. Your AR shooting .223’s at a tank ain’t gonna do a damn thing.


info

Just ask the Taliban or Afghans. They’ve kicked both Russia and the U.S. butt with little more than small arms, rpg’s, and stinger missiles.


When the U.S. has its next civil war, ask yourself now whether you would want to have an ar-15 and thousands of rounds.


Bert

Yea man theyre really kicking our butt. We have killed 18,000 to 20,000 Afghan civilians since 2003. 20,000 to 35,000 taliban have been killed by Afghan forces (where do you think they got the arms, think US government). 3,500 coalition soldiers have been killed since the invasion. Al Qaeda is a group as well as an ideology. And you can`t kill an ideology. Bring our troops home.


zaphod

just ask the dead

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.”

so you see this is a creation of the united states JUST ASK THE DEAD


dogeatdog

Thanks Burt your statement is right on.


Some of these people who are arming themselves against the government are the ones I wonder about myself.


I still think people ought to be able to discuss mental issues without being labeled or shunned. I suffer from depression as a lot of my family tree has, because we have a serotonin deficiency.


People are shocked I will openly talk about my depression, but then I know what can happen to some people who are not correctly diagnosed and treated.


I still think this man’s shrink did not sound the alarm bell fast enough about mental decline in this person and people lost their lives.And gun control will not change that.


1 2 3