Front Page  »  

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...
Subjects:                 
Related:


68 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

To paraphrase an old bumper sticker; “My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy’s car”.

A gun is a tool, no more, no less. If you were able to magically destroy all guns do you think fewer people would be murdered? If you do, you are a fool. People kill. With whatever they have to kill with.


0

In short, Elliott was quite the mastermind. Guns were only one of several tools that he chose to use. Guns were just a means to rapidly and selectively choose his victims. He could have easily used explosive devices. He would have done anything necessary to kill as many as possible and then made sure that he killed himself in the end.


I conclude, it’s not the guns. It’s more of a grand societal issue than the guy behind the guns. Get rid of the media’s agendas with their fantasy war games, sexist pressures and ADD causing television commercials and get our people back into the arts and analog reality


KILL YOUR TELEVISION!!!


0

Reading these comments further reinforces my educated observation that it is not guns that kill people.

It is stupid, narcissistic, selfish, bullying, loudmouthed AMERICANS with guns that kill people….and they comprise about 90% of the population.


It is also why this nation is in decline, and falling fast with no realistic vision for anything but utter collapse. Just too many complete buffoons and dolts with their heads full of mush wedged firmly in their posteriors and thinking the view is simply great !


0

Wow, you cannot defend your beliefs so you lose your temper and resort to ad hominem attacks. Do you have any idea how that reflects on your own intellect and formation as a human?


Not very well.


The USA (and most of the world it seems) is in decline for a number of reasons. One of them is people like you who act like out-and-out brats when others choose not to accept your poorly reasoned and often socially corrosive viewpoints.


In the end I suspect you’re exactly what you judge those you disagree with to be: “complete buffoons and dolts with their heads full of mush wedged firmly in their posteriors.”


0

Well, I’m not trying to defend myself or my ‘beliefs’. Don’t have to, really.

The boringly common passive-aggressive red herring invective that opponents are somehow ’emotional’ is noted.

I don’t really care what you think about me personally. I’m not troubled by any of your concerns.


I’m also apathetic about attempting to persuade or change the opinions of those exhibiting C.R.I. …Cranial Rectal Impactment.

It would take too much vaseline, and there is not a crowbar made that is long enough.


0

Your song and dance is getting old.


You want more gun control, even though it does not work.


You can’t sell your view so you’ve become rude. That’s very bad form.


0

You are so educated that you have to resort to name-calling? The country is in decline because for the last two generations we have been molly-coddling the youth. There are no expectations of them to be polite or well mannered. Their heroes are thugs and cretins who scream obscenities and call it “art”, their “play” is computer games of killing, torture and theft. They all get trophies for “showing up”, each and every one of them is oh, so special. The Country has lost it’s honor. and you want to blame it on people who follow the Constitution? So sad.


0

Well said. Amen.


0

Please, someone explain how many children have to die necessarily in the name of the SECOND AMENDMENT?


0

What will it take for you to understand that “gun control” will not stop such massacres?


Criminals will ALWAYS have firearms! By definition THEY DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW!


Still in a state of ignorance and/or denial?


0

What will it take for you to understand that “gun control” will not stop such massacre?

How do you know unless you’re willing to try?

Squarely, any and all ignorance and denial lies with you and those who feel gun control in a country with the greatest number of gun related deaths in the free world is not necessary.

Oh, by the way, please do explain how many children have to die in the name of the SECOND AMENDMENT? What is an acceptable number.


0

Are you serious? We have tried gun control and the result have been worthless.


Do you honestly not know or are you intentionally lying? California has been the gun control capital since the Cleveland Elementary School shooting in Stockton in 1989. NONE of it has done one bit of good. Along the way it became a political wedge issue and we now have a cesspool of gun control laws that do nothing but hinder law abiding citizens.


It began (Roberti-Roos) with many guns being banned by make/model number based only on their physical looks. Even today many firearms are illegal only because their model # are on that list. Otherwise identical firearms are not. When RR hideously failed, they started trying to ban firearms by feature — pistol grips, fore grips, telescoping and folding buttstocks, etc., etc. These features don’t give the firearms more firepower — they make them look “scary” to some and give politicos an angle in which to ban them. That too has failed.


Then they went and banned rifles chambered for the .50 BMG round even though no firearm chambered for this caliber has ever been used to commit a crime anywhere in the USA (not just CA)! Yet firearms chambered for the nearly identical .510 DTC round are perfectly legal. More political games using gun control.


Then came bans on regular-capacity (not “high capacity”) magazines. No more than 10 rounds/magazine — unless you happen to be a law enforcement officer of course. This ridiculous limit certainly didn’t slow down the Isla Vista killer.


Along the way CA politicos also came up with the Approved Handgun Roster, a new microstamping requirement (I’ll leave you to to Google that.)


Please explain why you shift the focus away from mental health to gun control, putting more lives in jeopardy as you do? Is it simply a matter of politics for you? You like gun control being used as a wedge issue to divide people, no matter how many more die because people like you have diverted attention away from mental health?


You and people like you have blood on your hands. How do you sleep at night? Shame on you!


0

Spit it out,what is your proposal for gun control,how would you plan to do it.


0

Detroit. Chicago. New York. Washington D.C. All Democratically controlled, all with incredibly strict gun control. Do I really have to say anything else? None are so blind as those who choose not to see!


0

Ahh, you mean the citys and states with the most injurys by gun.


0

Gun ownership saves lives.self defense is a human right


.. How many of those will be lost because others think they can pad their whole world?


0

“Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner and Santa Barbara Assemblyman Das Williams introduced a bill”


OK! We have identified 2 more people who are ready to step on any soapbox (coffin) after a tragedy to gain some notoriety (votes?) with an absolutely ridiculous proposal.


So if I have a problem with a neighbor, a family member, a casual acquaintance, a lover who spurned me, OR ANYONE, all I have to do is drop a dime. I can declare them crazy in my mind, and their constitutional rights will be ‘suspended’ until they can prove in court that they are not who I claim them to be.


Please remember the aforementioned names if they show up on any future ballot.


0

You hit the nail on the head. This could become a huge problem very quickly.


0

Sad tragedy, but there is a long standing history of these issues at UCSB and students with anger management issues. Some of them end up working for governmental agencies locally, abuse staff, then move on to SLOtown.


0

I suspect one contributory aspect is that wealthy people from throughout CA feel that SB is a safe “warehouse” for their kids — troubled or not at either UCSB, SBCC, Westmont, etc. Isla Vista is also a magnet for college-aged partiers from SLO to Camarillo.


This killer had no business being sent “up north” away from his family — but I suspect it was the easiest thing to do.


0

Sadly, one of my first thoughts after hearing about this massacre was “I hope the killer didn’t use a modern sporting rifle. If he did, the politicos will once again be pushing for more gun control for their own political gain”


A modern sporting rifles (erroneously referred to as “assault weapons/rifles” by some) wouldn’t have been any more deadly in this instance. The difference is that the gun-banning politicos believe they can ban modern sporting rifles while knowing they cannot win a political fight to ban semi-automatic pistols. That’s the only difference — politics.


Semi-automatic pistols have been widely available in the US since the late 19th Century. The gun banners need to pause for a moment and really consider what has changed. It’s not the supply of guns…


0

“It’s not the supply of guns ….” Um, no; it is not only the fact that there are more major gun makers now, and that they have considerable political clout, but also the influence of NRA, not only in Congress, but in the realm of public perception. The NRA has pushed the “fear of the other” card for far too long with aim of whipping up fear by the general public to react by purchasing a firearm (usually a handgun) for “protection”, and with their political clout, stymied legislation and taken the teeth out of some of the regulations to make access to firearms easier.


What is your assertion that has changed since the 19th century in regard to firearms being used in criminal acts and/or accidental shootings?


0

You honestly need to do some research before posting on these forums. Do you think your lies will stick? By far the largest gun manufacturers in the USA (which account for at least 90% of the arms sold here) are:


Beretta (1526, parent company is Italian), Remington (1861) [(Remington also owns Marlin (1870), Harrington & Richardson (1871) and Bushmaster (1973)], Smith&Wesson (1852), Colt’s Manufacturing (1852), Savage Arms (1894), Mossberg (1919), Sturm Ruger and Co. (1949) and Glock (1979, parent company is Austrian.) I don’t believe there is a “new major gun maker” that is newer than Glock. There are some new minor gun makers, but for each one of those, two older ones have closed their doors.


In sum, you’re not telling the truth, either due to ignorance or you’re purposely lying.


There is absolutely no doubt that more firearms have been sold in the US since Barack Obama has been president than any other period of the same length in US history. Law-abiding citizens are concerned, some afraid and most tired of being told what they can and cannot legally own with regard to firearms.


“The NRA” is 5.5M people just like me. An organization supported by individuals (and not those new major gun makers you lie about) with a budget that’s quite modest compared to gun-banning extremist radical groups like Bloomberg’s, Brady’s, et. al. There are a ton of anti-gun lobbying groups in DC. What makes the NRA so special? Its members? The fact that it’s not living the lives of the Bloomberg’s and Brady’s?


0

The politicians are headed in the right direction but their antics still concern me. They lose a huge amount of credibility right out of the gate for doing this as a reaction to a hideous crime. Similarly, anything coming out of Darrell Steinberg’s yap is suspect, given his reputation as a gun-banning political enema bag.


At least this time they’re not (at least not yet) talking about banning firearms based on their color, whether or not they are “scary looking”, their model name, the number of rounds a magazine holds, etc.


The had better make damned sure that their proposals don’t create a monster that can be vindictively used to attack sane/law-abiding citizens.


0

Taking guns from the average citizen because a crazy has killed with one, is like taking away everybody’s cars because some people drive drunk.


0

We license people before we let them drive. We make them pass knowledge and field conditon tests before we let them have a license for the privilege of driving.

We also register and license vehicles, making sure they are safe to operate. We have traffic laws that all are expected to obey.

We do plenty of things with cars beforehand in the interest of public safety.


Your supposed argument, is another in a line of being entirely specious and inflammatory without foundation.


0

Driving is a privilege. Buying, keeping and shooting a gun is a constitutionally-guaranteed inalienable right. Apples and oranges.


Nevertheless one must first take a test and pay for a CA Handgun Safety Certificate before they can even buy a handgun. Then they have to undergo and pay for a background check and wait 10 days before picking up their handgun. Imagine the state trying to hold onto a new vehicle for 10 days after one paid for it.


You became nasty/bitter in your last sentence. I’ll interpret that as you waving a white flag signalling that you don’t pack the gear to defend your indefensible beliefs.


0

When was the last time you took a drive? They obviously don’t test much do they? And you want this same level of testing for gun ownership, for shame Slowerfaster, for shame. You are failing your liberal platitude course miserably.


0

We license US citizens before they drive, but we have allowed millions of people here illegally to drive without licenses. We have gun control requirements for law abiding citizens, yet we allow everyone, including criminals, to buy and carry unregistered guns. We have immigration laws, yet our own federal government will not enforce them.


Your argument would be true (and should be true) if our own laws were enforced, but they’re not.


0

“…yet we allow everyone, including criminals, to buy and carry unregistered guns…”


It’s not that “we allow.” They just do! Additional gun control isn’t going to change that.


0
1 2 3