11 Killed, Sheriff's Sergeant Dies, in Thousand Oaks Bar Shooting

[Chrisj CMA]

Gun control kills.

How many more must be sacrificed to this failed experiment of making defenseless victim zones before we realize this? 

+1

[Beardo]

Gun control kills.

How many more must be sacrificed to this failed experiment of making defenseless victim zones before we realize this?  

Just asking...my understanding is that this guy was former USMC and the gun and magazine were legal and legally purchased. There was an incident in April where he was apparently unstable and according to neighbours,  his own mother was afraid of what he might do. But mental health officials deemed him ok and he hadn’t broken any laws, so nothing was done.  Should his guns and ability to buy guns have been taken away? Some here seem to suggest they should have. I suspect if they had, there’d be people protesting that his rights had been trampled on since he was a veteran and legal gun owner who had done nothing illegal.

  What, if anything, could have been done here?  Aside from better treatment for veterans suffering from PTSD (if that’s what happened here), not sure. Even under our relatively stricter gun owner licensing, he’d be able to buy guns here too(not the 30 round mag, but a trained Marine could probably reload a regular mag pretty quickly anyway).

[Serk]

Gun control kills.

How many more must be sacrificed to this failed experiment of making defenseless victim zones before we realize this?  

Just asking...my understanding is that this guy was former USMC and the gun and magazine were legal and legally purchased. There was an incident in April where he was apparently unstable and according to neighbours,  his own mother was afraid of what he might do. But mental health officials deemed him ok and he hadn’t broken any laws, so nothing was done.  Should his guns and ability to buy guns have been taken away? Some here seem to suggest they should have. I suspect if they had, there’d be people protesting that his rights had been trampled on since he was a veteran and legal gun owner who had done nothing illegal.

  What, if anything, could have been done here?  Aside from better treatment for veterans suffering from PTSD (if that’s what happened here), not sure. Even under our relatively stricter gun owner licensing, he’d be able to buy guns here too(not the 30 round mag, but a trained Marine could probably reload a regular mag pretty quickly anyway).

If the patrons of the establishment had been allowed to be armed, the body count would have been much lower.

I carry all day every day. If I can't carry somewhere, I avoid going there.

In California it is effectively impossible (In most parts of the state) to get a concealed weapon permit.

Even in states where you can get said permit, it's generally illegal to carry in a bar (Even if you're NOT drinking.)

Remove these restrictions. Let the random quiet guy in the corner be able to draw and stop the mad man as soon as it starts.

Gun. Control. Kills.

[Rams]

Gun. Control. Kills.

Ya know, ironically, I believe "Uncle Joe" is a pretty likeable person.  It's a shame he doesn't have a clue as to how the real world works.    Gun Free Zones make great killing zones.   Something he doesn't appear to understand....   

Rams

[Chrisj CMA]

Gun control kills.

How many more must be sacrificed to this failed experiment of making defenseless victim zones before we realize this?  

Just asking...my understanding is that this guy was former USMC and the gun and magazine were legal and legally purchased. There was an incident in April where he was apparently unstable and according to neighbours,  his own mother was afraid of what he might do. But mental health officials deemed him ok and he hadn’t broken any laws, so nothing was done.  Should his guns and ability to buy guns have been taken away? Some here seem to suggest they should have. I suspect if they had, there’d be people protesting that his rights had been trampled on since he was a veteran and legal gun owner who had done nothing illegal.

  What, if anything, could have been done here?  Aside from better treatment for veterans suffering from PTSD (if that’s what happened here), not sure. Even under our relatively stricter gun owner licensing, he’d be able to buy guns here too(not the 30 round mag, but a trained Marine could probably reload a regular mag pretty quickly anyway).

Mental health professionals that would be used to evaluate someone like him are predisposed to find nothing wrong due to the lack of resources to treat people that need treatment. If there were adequate resources to treat veterans that need it it could have been a different story

[bscrive]

Gun control kills.

How many more must be sacrificed to this failed experiment of making defenseless victim zones before we realize this? 

Yep, that is really evident with places like the UK, Australia, Canada, etc.

Also, the stats I gave for mass shootings in the US are shootings where 4 or more people were killed.

Willow, I don't know what the heck you are talking about.  I got my quote from Fox news, although they have revised the count to 307 mass shootings now.  Last year, the US had 346 mass shootings.

Come on guys, you really need to get your head out of the sand.

I do agree that mental illness is definitely the cause for these shootings, but how do you restrict someone when they can buy a gun illegally, they just have to go to the bad side of any town to get one.

[Rams]

Come on guys, you really need to get your head out of the sand.

I do agree that mental illness is definitely the cause for these shootings, but how do you restrict someone when they can buy a gun illegally, they just have to go to the bad side of any town to get one.

I don't believe anyone has their heads stuck in the sand.
There are a lot of folks much smarter than I searching for the answers.    It is only common sense to be prepared to defend one's self, their family, friends and country.    Therefore the old adage of not bringing a knife to a gun fight is very applicable.   

Gun free zones are stupid in my opinion.   

Rams

[98valk]

Gun control kills.

How many more must be sacrificed to this failed experiment of making defenseless victim zones before we realize this? 

I was told to coward someplace after calling 911 cause the police will be there in 5-10 minutes and SWAT fully geared in 15-30 minutes. Just in time to look cool in pictures and on TV and to do a murder investigation for a few days and write reports. Lots of OT for all.  And in many areas of the country cops are making btwn $80-150k/yr and make the same when they retire. lots of union dues.

[Willow]

...
Also, the stats I gave for mass shootings in the US are shootings where 4 or more people were killed.

Willow, I don't know what the heck you are talking about.  I got my quote from Fox news, although they have revised the count to 307 mass shootings now.  Last year, the US had 346 mass shootings.
...

I guess I would have to have a link.  My finding on Fox News reported that a gun control organization (not Fox News) reported 307 mass shootings based upon the four or more in a public place.  The article went on to explain why that is misleading.  I agree that the classification of every four or more as mass is BS.  Another article on Fox News reported a study of 185 mass shootings from 1900 - 2017.  That's probably more realistic.

People who push for gun control want to regularly cite the number of guns as the cause of gun violence.  They choose to ignore culture.  Honestly, not one for one but generally, the people of the U.S. are culturally different than those of Canada, Australia, and the U.K.  Likewise the cultures of Brazil and of middle eastern countries are not the same as those British like countries.

I am not so deeply concerned with what happens when bad people have guns that I am willing to take away guns from the good people.  Truthfully a few people statistically die as a result of bad people with guns but a good person with a gun is most certainly less likely to be a victim than he would be without a gun.   If we really wanted to make a dent in the number of untimely deaths we would be concentrating on reducing the number of fatal autimobile accidents.  It seems odd to me that the gun control extremists make no mention of banning high speed automobiles.

I'm glad you like where you are and support the choices they have made.  I like where I am.  I have no desire for the U.S. to be more like Canada or the U.K.  I honestly don't have any desire to live in those places.   

[Gavin_Sons]

Gun control kills.

How many more must be sacrificed to this failed experiment of making defenseless victim zones before we realize this? 

Yep, that is really evident with places like the UK, Australia, Canada, etc.

Also, the stats I gave for mass shootings in the US are shootings where 4 or more people were killed.

Willow, I don't know what the heck you are talking about.  I got my quote from Fox news, although they have revised the count to 307 mass shootings now.  Last year, the US had 346 mass shootings.

Come on guys, you really need to get your head out of the sand.

I do agree that mental illness is definitely the cause for these shootings, but how do you restrict someone when they can buy a gun illegally, they just have to go to the bad side of any town to get one.

Argue and bad mouth our country all you want. We will still have our guns and you won't. Our guns will never go anywhere.

[Moonshot_1]

The path to have laws barring "mentally ill" people from having guns is complicated.

Obviously the state (government) would be the entity to craft and enforce such laws.
Who gets to define this? How crazy do you have to be to lose your right to defend yourself? Who gets to decide that? Someone who thinks no one should be armed?

Perhaps the standard must be prior aggravated crimes. Prior felonies that trigger mental evaluations. But then this only provides for legally purchases. And we have seen, quite recently, that there are people willing to falsely charge good, innocent people for personal and political gain.

We go down this path at the risk of ripping the liberties and freedoms from law abiding citizens.

The idea that the government can mentally evaluate you to take your rights away, any right, is a dangerous path to tread for which there must be safeguards and the highest of standards before such action can be taken. Real due process. Not the whim of a bureaucrat.

The only real solution to the problem of criminal shooters is Law abiding shooters.

There should be no "Gun Free Zones". That just advertises the zone is defenseless. Bad guys like that.

[MAD6Gun]

Keep coming with the stats guys, we all know how they can be skewed to say what you want, but mass shootings like this seem to be a USA thing.  How many have happened this year in the US compared to any other country.  Sure there are individual murders that may compare, but I was talking about the mass shootings.
There have been @ 308 mass shootings so far this year in the US and 1 in Canada.  Canada has had @ 10 mass shootings since 1989.

Here's a stat for you.  I have eight hand guns three shotguns and two semi automatic rifles.  Not a one of those guns have participated in a mass shooting at any time. 

It's not the guns

So many times as with this event the shooter should not have been allowed to have the weapons. 

The system in place failed so they blame the gun.

We have a bunch of sick people that we refuse to take care of.  Then gun grabbers think restricting firearms is the answer.

You have two statements in opposition.

There are many who are against restricting guns in any form, regardless of mental sickness. Many here feel this way.

 I would have to agree that is one of the most asinine things you have said. So you are referring that because we don't want gun restrictions that we are somehow ok with the mentally ill getting guns? That couldn't be further from the truth. If a person is deamed a threat to themselves or others their gun should be removed. But someone fouled up in this case because obviously he was a threat. How is that ours or the gun industry fault?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Keep coming with the stats guys, we all know how they can be skewed to say what you want, but mass shootings like this seem to be a USA thing.  How many have happened this year in the US compared to any other country.  Sure there are individual murders that may compare, but I was talking about the mass shootings.
There have been @ 308 mass shootings so far this year in the US and 1 in Canada.  Canada has had @ 10 mass shootings since 1989.

Here's a stat for you.  I have eight hand guns three shotguns and two semi automatic rifles.  Not a one of those guns have participated in a mass shooting at any time. 

It's not the guns

So many times as with this event the shooter should not have been allowed to have the weapons. 

The system in place failed so they blame the gun.

We have a bunch of sick people that we refuse to take care of.  Then gun grabbers think restricting firearms is the answer.

You have two statements in opposition.

There are many who are against restricting guns in any form, regardless of mental sickness. Many here feel this way.

 I would have to agree that is one of the most asinine things you have said. So you are referring that because we don't want gun restrictions that we are somehow ok with the mentally ill getting guns? That couldn't be further from the truth. If a person is deamed a threat to themselves or others their gun should be removed. But someone fouled up in this case because obviously he was a threat. How is that ours or the gun industry fault?

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I said is there are many people who are not ok with judging someone's mental fitness in a way that would deprive them of possessing guns. It's been stated here and elsewhere many times.

[Jess from VA]

We (the non-insane, non-felon and non-drug and alcohol addicts) have and want the 2d Amendment as a fundamental right.

The level of random (and planned) violence in our country, with or without guns, only supports the right of a free people to be armed (against all enemies, foreign and domestic.... and it's mostly domestic).

We hope our criminal justice system takes violent people and puts them away (and occasionally kills the worst, eventually), but long experience shows it's only partially effective.  And we also like the presumption of innocence, rights to counsel and to due process, and we like that the G has an uphill burden to put us away for crime or craziness.  We lock up a higher percentage of our people than most all other countries, and for longer periods, but this still doesn't get all the dangerous and violent people off the streets (and never will).  

It seems pretty clear from history that a given percentage of humans are and will always be defective units.  It's too bad there is no testing available at birth that is 100% effective at revealing future violent offenders so they could be drowned soon after birth to save us the grief, time and expense their violence will later cause us.  But that would not be a popular program for most, even if it was 100% effective.  And it also seems clear that some humans are born bad, but many only become bad through learned behavior later in life.

But what is crystal clear is that as we fornicate our way to billions of humans, that percentage of defective units results in the raw numbers of defective units getting larger and larger all the time.

It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one for us and our citizens.  

You cannot legislate away all crime and defective human units. There already exist thousands of gun laws, and state and federal agencies that highly regulate and oversee arms, manufacture, sales and ownership.  The various G's are only partially effective at enforcing all these existing laws.

Given the number of firearms in the US today, even if they all became illegal tomorrow, the criminal and violent people would be easily able to be armed for the next 500 years.  How does only criminals being armed solve anything or make us safer?

We prefer liberty over safety.  We prefer to be free men, not subjects.  

Our founding fathers had it right, and we will continue to be armed in our own self defense (and of others).  

If you don't like guns, don't own any.   If you want mine, come and take them. 

[Raider]

Keep coming with the stats guys, we all know how they can be skewed to say what you want, but mass shootings like this seem to be a USA thing.  How many have happened this year in the US compared to any other country.  Sure there are individual murders that may compare, but I was talking about the mass shootings.
There have been @ 308 mass shootings so far this year in the US and 1 in Canada.  Canada has had @ 10 mass shootings since 1989.

SEEM.  Exactly.  That is precisely what the media and the left want you to believe.  They need good sheep who follow their emotions and inclinations to accomplish their goals.

[Willow]

The path to have laws barring "mentally ill" people from having guns is complicated.

Obviously the state (government) would be the entity to craft and enforce such laws.
Who gets to define this? How crazy do you have to be to lose your right to defend yourself? Who gets to decide that? Someone who thinks no one should be armed?
...
We go down this path at the risk of ripping the liberties and freedoms from law abiding citizens.

The idea that the government can mentally evaluate you to take your rights away, any right, is a dangerous path to tread for which there must be safeguards and the highest of standards before such action can be taken. Real due process. Not the whim of a bureaucrat.
...

/\  This is the truth.  This is something to seriously think about.  We have been brainwashed to believe something makes sense that doesn't.  The first steps have already been taken.

...
There are many who are against restricting guns in any form, regardless of mental sickness. Many here feel this way.

I would have to agree that is one of the most asinine things you have said. ... [/quote]

I would be one of those to whom the meathead is referring.  The second amendment reads “..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”.  The term, people, has no modifier and no except clause.  It doesn't say those whom the government has found suitable and has licensed.  It doesn't say except those whom somebody has deemed as dangerous.  We, through the states, have made a shamble of the second amendment.

I truly do not know the final answer but I'm sure it begins with addressing the culture rather than simply limiting the weapons.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I would be one of those to whom the meathead is referring.  The second amendment reads “..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”.  The term, people, has no modifier and no except clause.  It doesn't say those whom the government has found suitable and has licensed.  It doesn't say except those whom somebody has deemed as dangerous.  We, through the states, have made a shamble of the second amendment.

I truly do not know the final answer but I'm sure it begins with addressing the culture rather than simply limiting the weapons.

I truly don't know the answer either. I suspect if we are to reduce gun violence it will end up being a multi pronged strategy. But honestly, I don't hold much hope for it. Its interesting how the 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude felons from gun ownership, but I would suspect most NRA members are in favor of it.
 The entire point of my response to Jeff's post was the direct opposition of being in favor of removing guns from this guy, but being opposed to gun restrictions.

[Beardo]

I’d like to know, specifically, what law would have prevented this particular shooting. He had broken no laws, was a trained legal gun owner with a legal gun.

People (some) want to do something whenever something bad happens. But laws for the sake of doing something still wouldn’t have stopped this one.

[98valk]

 U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt’s "speak softly and carry a big stick."
in other words the citizens need to be armed again and remove the excessive power that has been given to the police unions and their police state agenda.

how quickly people forget the mass shooting by a liberal lunatic at the church in Texas (one yr ago?) whereas an armed citizen stopped him and saved many lives.
FBI statistics yr after yr show 1-2 million lives are saved from assault/rape/robbery/death by a perp due to the law abiding citizen having a 2nd Amendment gun. very high % just by the citizen showing their gun and never having to pull the trigger.

[old2soon]

U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt’s "speak softly and carry a big stick."
in other words the citizens need to be armed again and remove the excessive power that has been given to the police unions and their police state agenda.

how quickly people forget the mass shooting by a liberal lunatic at the church in Texas (one yr ago?) whereas an armed citizen stopped him and saved many lives.
FBI statistics yr after yr show 1-2 million lives are saved from assault/rape/robbery/death by a perp due to the law abiding citizen having a 2nd Amendment gun. very high % just by the citizen showing their gun and never having to pull the trigger.

              But the liberal u n backed gun grabbing lobby do NOT want you/us to hear or put stock in the actual happenings of legal 2nd amendment gun owners doing good. I read very few instances of this happening. But I KNOW it happens far more than we hear of. Could-heavens to murgatroid-it be the "media" is tryin to hoodwink us? Or doing good with a weapon do not "fit" the u n agenda? Yeah-lets go with that one-don't fit the agenda. RIDE SAFE.