California synagogue shooting

One of the CA members on arfcom knew the victim and had taken a picture of her with his daughter just hours before.

I would say I hope he gets the death penalty but Governor Newsom saw fit to get rid of it. I just hope he doesn't get an insanity deal, let him do life in general population!

Sad situation all around and as usual the left uses it to push their anti gun agendas!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"but, but KILLERS shouldn't be able to buy guns legally!!!"
That's right. The shouldn't, and they can't. Period.
"but, but, this killer did!!!"

No, he didn't. He wasn't a killer when he bought the gun legally. He was a law abiding citizen (otherwise the gun sale couldn't be legal) the same as you, or I, or anyone else, who later TURNED KILLER.
Click to expand...
That's one of the arguments the gun control crowd likes to use. They point out that there are people who at the time don't have criminal records and are able to buy guns legally and do so and then at some point after that cease to be law abiding and use their guns to kill people. That is why guns should be harder to get legally, according to the gun control crowd.
 
I know they like that argument. It's a fallacy, but they do like it. Until you turn it around on them.

Give me all your money! (everything above Govt mandated minimum wage)
Make that money "harder to get"! That way, you won't have money to spend on illegal things (such as dope, or prostitutes) or idiotic legal things, and so, we'll all be safer!

Better have a background check, waiting period and extra fees in order to buy a golf club, (or a car, or a ….(insert object name here..) because somewhere, somebody broke the law with one...

Better require government approval before allowing people to use the internet, because somewhere, someone bashed someone's head with a laptop....

Better get a govt permit, each and every time you want to sleep with your wife, because, well, you know, women have been raped.....:rolleyes:

wouldn't we all be so much better? so much safer? if we did that??

(absolutely intentional sarcasm)
 
PhotonGuy said:
That's one of the arguments the gun control crowd likes to use. They point out that there are people who at the time don't have criminal records and are able to buy guns legally and do so and then at some point after that cease to be law abiding and use their guns to kill people. That is why guns should be harder to get legally, according to the gun control crowd.
Click to expand...
The same can be said about knives, hammers, axes, rat poison, automobiles, trucks, chain saws, and gasoline (arson), and baseball bats. But, when a knife, a hammer, an axe, rat poison, an automobile or a truck, a chain saw, a can of gasoline, or a baseball bat is used, the focus is on the person who committed the crime rather than an immediate rush to ban or heavily regulate the [___] that was used. Whatever [___] is, it's an inanimate object, an instrument, a tool. [___] didn't commit any crime ... it was used by a person to commit a crime.

What we (IMHO) **must** realize is that the anti-gun forces are irrational about guns. They love the term "common sense," but common sense should dictate that the key to reducing crime is to address criminals, not to ban tools. The position of the gun control advocates is illogical and irrational. It completely ignores the reality that if people want to commit crimes, they will find ways to do it.

It's much more difficult for people in Europe to have guns than it is in the U.S. Result: Look at the carnage in Europe over the past year (or so) wrought by people driving cars and trucks into throngs of people. And now that's coming to the U.S. There was an incident not all that long ago, IIRC, in which somebody drove a rented truck down a bikeway in New York City. And four days ago someone did the same thing in San Francisco. Note the locations: New York City and San Francisco are among the American cities where it's the most difficult for citizens to have guns. So ... people who wanted to kill other people simply moved on and chose an alternate weapon. Lack of access to guns did NOT prevent the attacks. Any belief that it might do so is, IMHO, magical thinking.
 
They point out that there are people who at the time don't have criminal records and are able to buy guns legally and do so and then at some point after that cease to be law abiding and use their guns to kill people.
Click to expand...
The idea that any person walking down the street could be a powderkeg of potential violence betrays a certain grim outlook about human nature.

It also leads us down a dismal slope of encroachments on all our civil liberties.
 
The same can be said about knives, hammers, axes, rat poison, automobiles, trucks, chain saws, and gasoline (arson), and baseball bats. But, when a knife, a hammer, an axe, rat poison, an automobile or a truck, a chain saw, a can of gasoline, or a baseball bat is used, the focus is on the person who committed the crime rather than an immediate rush to ban or heavily regulate the [___] that was used. Whatever [___] is, it's an inanimate object, an instrument, a tool. [___] didn't commit any crime ... it was used by a person to commit a crime.
Click to expand...

This is because, in part, the anti-gun crowd perceives all those things as having legitimate uses by normal people outside of killing or doing harm to other people. This is not a belief shared by the anti-gun crowd concerning guns, which are perceived to be for the sole purpose of killing, which is a belief held by a surprising number of gun owners as well, but viewed from a different perspective, an irrational perspective, as you said.

It's much more difficult for people in Europe to have guns than it is in the U.S. Result: Look at the carnage in Europe over the past year (or so) wrought by people driving cars and trucks into throngs of people. And now that's coming to the U.S.
Click to expand...

So it became popular in 2018 in Europe and now it is come here to our side of the pond? Actually, we have been ramming people on our side of the pond for decades...

1977 https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EUYRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m9kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6453,474007&dq=
1984 https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3aMRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lekDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6507,2783364&dq=
2004 Serial Rammer https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/...runs-gets-30-years-in-neighbor-s-killing.html
2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_UNC_SUV_attack
2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_San_Francisco_SUV_rampage
2010 Canada https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...egree-murder-for-fatal-run-at-crowd-1.1062248
2011 https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011...nto-crowd-of-drag-race-spectators-on-purpose/
2013 https://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-venice-boardwalk-trial-20150501-story.html
2014 https://www.amny.com/news/kevin-wee...ng-car-into-queens-crowd-killing-1-1.11613252
2014 https://www.foxnews.com/us/driver-i...ntentionally-drove-car-into-crowd-report-says
2015 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...owd-charged-with-murder-idUSKBN0U40X120151223
2016 https://abc7ny.com/woman-convicted-for-driving-car-into-group-of-people-in-hempstead/3156420/
2017 https://thehill.com/homenews/news/4...testers-at-charlottesville-rally-convicted-of

So yeah, we have been doing it here in the states for terrorist, anger, revenge, mental health reasons for decades, and these were necessarily due to a lack of access of guns. In reality, this goes on and has been going on around the world, China, Japan, Brazil, Israel, Haiti, Canada, Turkey, England, various countries in mainland Europe, Egypt, etc. It is described in an Al-Queada book from 2010 for this purpose...
https://abc7chicago.com/news/author...-may-try-truck-ramming-attacks-in-us/1954694/
 
Double Naught: Your statistics on automotive-related assaults just document my point. There was no outcry after those incidents to ban automobiles or to subject people to intrusive background checks before allowing them to apply for a driver's license. Guns really are somewhat unique in having been singled out as agents of destruction.
 
The term hate crime is over used...or perhaps redundant.
If you kill someone in cold blood it's an act of hate.
Color, race age or sex doesn't matter. It's still hate.
It's sad that there are those who will use every tragedy to push an agenda.
It shouldn't be that way. What matters are the victims. Stopping crimes should be the only agenda, not a mean to push other agendas.

Guns aren't and never were the problem or the issue. It is all about how people treat each other. Violent crimes don't stop when guns are restricted or banned.
Statistics show that the UK gun ban increased crime by nearly 50%. Unfortunately you have to WANT to look at those facts because they are never mentioned by those posing an anti-gun agenda.
And as far a gun laws go....every mass shooting happened because someone broke an existing law or laws. Does anyone thing more laws won't be broken?
 
This is because, in part, the anti-gun crowd perceives all those things as having legitimate uses by normal people outside of killing or doing harm to other people. This is not a belief shared by the anti-gun crowd concerning guns, which are perceived to be for the sole purpose of killing
Click to expand...
Guns have uses other than killing people, target shooting for instance, and hunting. And as for killing people, there are other things that can be more effective than guns at that even if that is not their intended purpose, gasoline for instance.
 
Oscar Stewart, the unarmed good guy who chased the shooter, is a former Navy EOD guy and US Army staff sergeant.

Good on Oscar Stewart.
 
Last edited:
So the gun was purchased legally. In California, which already has in place pretty much every anti-gun restriction the gun control advocates want nationally. And it didn't prevent an attack. A rational person would draw some logical inferences from that regarding the efficacy of "gun" laws to control human behavior, but (as we know), the gun control advocates aren't rational.

Does anyone know if the synagogue is/was a gun-free zone? Either by state law or by its own policies?
 
The purpose of guns is not to kill. The primary purpose of guns is to protect. The military uses them to protect our country and its interests, law enforcement use them to protect our communities and businesses, and citizens use them to protect our homes and families. Killing is often an outcome of this protection, but not the purpose of the firearm. Killing outside the purpose of protection is a misuse of the firearm.
 
Does anyone know if the synagogue is/was a gun-free zone? Either by state law or by its own policies?
Click to expand...

Well, if it was a GFZ, then that was being violated by one or more of the members. The BP agent didn't even have a gun. It was given to him by another member.
https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2019/04/27/exclusive-poway-synagogue-shooting/

However, it was not a GFZ by policy. In fact, the rabbi had been having volunteer armed guards present, but had gotten complacent about maintaining armed vigils.
https://news.yahoo.com/fearing-atta...0NThjBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM1BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

Instead, the synagogue relied on armed volunteers to occasionally sit in the lobby, according to Goldstein. But as time went on, Goldstein said he felt an attack was less likely and it was less urgent to secure armed volunteers. “It’s been six months and nothing happened,” he recalled himself thinking before Saturday’s attack. “You start getting complacent.”

There were no armed volunteers positioned in the lobby Saturday when a gunman barged in, as about 75 congregants waited for services to begin on the last day of Passover.
Click to expand...
 
It has nothing to do with what laws are in place, have been broken, shooters age...

Anti gun policies are just that, anti gun! They don't want people to own or have access to any guns period! And if you think one party is better than the other, you need to wake up.

Playing nice so that we look good doesn't matter either, look at how anti gun people act and no one cares! If they did, these people would've been stomped into the dirt already!

The most disturbing thing is that each time this happens, they don't care what the circumstances are, they just start in on the gun control B.S. Do you think they care about the families of the victims?
 
This thread is to discuss the incident. Let's not go down general gun control issues.

We have plenty of discussion of such elsewhere. I don't want to close it, so don't go off topic.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top