"The weapon did have an extended magazine on it," Sheriff Dean said. "We do not know at this time how many rounds were actually in the weapon or how many rounds the magazine could actually hold because it's still being processed as part of the evidence."
The New York Times included some additional information regarding the shooter. “Deputies had several interactions with the shooter over the last few years, the sheriff said, including a reported disturbance at his home in April that prompted mental health specialists to talk to him. The health specialists, who discussed his military service and whether had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, determined that he was not an immediate danger to himself or others and that he could not be involuntarily taken to a mental hospital.”
As with any shooting, there are the inevitable calls for gun control. The type of gun used and the shooter’s mental state allow us to debunk any notion that gun control would have achieved anything. As usual, liberals and the media are clueless when it comes to firearms. Regular people who own guns have to be educated on firearm law, and for the most part, they are. Liberals and the media can exist in a world where firearms are foreign and can only talk about what they know from TV or movies or Alyssa Milano.
The quote I chose for the subheading is a precise example of media stupidity on the subject, and frankly, it harms public discourse on the subject because terms are used irresponsibly.
The video clip found in the NBC article includes commentary from MSNBC where the following idiotic statement is made, which in conjunction with the lazy writing, illustrates the media’s ineptitude. Here is what was said “It’s a .45 caliber weapon, now that means that it had more firepower than a conventional handgun of this type, a 9mm, and that may be part of the reason why so many people were killed.” He then goes on to say that a 10 round mag is “conventional.”
I'll leave that commentary alone and go back to the NBC article itself. What exactly is a “high powered handgun?” During any shooting where a rifle is involved, the media immediately denounces “high powered rifles.” Pundits and liberal gasbags highlight that a 5.56 round is much faster than 9mm and we should all fear that dreaded cartridge because it’s terrifyingly fast. Never mind that “high powered rifle” is an amorphous term. Generally, the term “high powered” may refer to any caliber that is capable of penetrating level II body armor, which, for those keeping score at home, is every rifle caliber larger than .22. So if that’s “high powered” as it relates to rifles, what on god’s green earth is a “high powered handgun?” Is it velocity? .45 is slower than 9mm. Is it grain? Is it mass of the round? Are we talking high powered in terms of rarity of use?
If someone says high-powered handgun, my mind goes to .44 magnum, “the most powerful handgun in the world” or the .50 action express. My mind would not immediately go to a standard service weapon caliber.
The .45 has more stopping power because of its mass, but I don’t think that alone can qualify it as “high powered” If idiots in the media think a gun is more dangerous because of the bullet velocity, as if you could outrun a 9mm round as opposed to 5.56, you’re golden with .45.
I know that sounds tacky. We are repeatedly told not to politicize mass shootings, but then an incoherent media and an assortment of liberals babble on with zero credibility or expertise on the subject of firearms. (I give you DiFI’s primary challenger Kevin De Leon)
So while some firearm experts could make the case that .45 is “high powered,” that’s not what NBC is doing. They are just clueless.
Moving on, as people have called for gun control, we must examine what was and is the law and California and what could have been done to prevent this shooting.
First, the obvious suggestion is magazine size restriction. The authorities are not sure how many rounds the shooter fired or had in each mag. They aren’t sure how large the mags were. They aren’t sure how many mags he had. These unknowns highlight the stupidity of mag capacity restrictions. In California, mags have to be ten rounds or less. But a federal judge has enjoined that law. To California, a high capacity mag for a Glock-21 could be the standard 13 round magazine that anyone else can buy if they lived in a different state or it could be a 30 round magazine that are still easy to find. We don’t know yet. Prior to the injunction, it was illegal in California to alter a magazine or to bring in larger magazines from another state. All purchases of out-of-state firearms have to be reported to California’s DOJ. In-state purchases are also registered and kept with records of the purchaser’s fingerprints.
The fact that the capacity restrictions were enjoined should be proof enough to liberals that these type of bans do nothing. There are obvious constitutional concerns, but they have no use for them so instead we have to focus on WHY the bans are impractical, both in stopping crime, and in upholding the rights of citizens. Let’s say that the shooter had 10 round mags. He could have had multiple mags. As the New York Times pointed out by quoting a survivor, “She said she saw him quickly reload his gun and fire again. “He knew what he was doing,” she said. “He had perfect form.” Reloading is no obstacle. Yet California has taken measures to prevent reloading “Assault Weapons” by requiring bullet buttons. This is also constitutionally impermissible because it renders the firearm inoperable without tools. This could never be applied to pistols, yet that is the only thing that would satisfy liberals. Liberals are the same people who claim that police should aim for a knee instead of trying to kill a dangerous suspect. They misunderstand the point of self-defense and the use of deadly force. Placing rounds on a target is one thing, placing rounds on a hostile target is another. Police are notoriously inaccurate, so hitting a knee is impractical especially when the goal is to stop the threat. But stopping the threat is dependent on the location of shots. I have spoken with police who can recall suspects walking around after being shot multiple times. Now let’s imagine you are a homeowner whose house has been broken into. Knowing these two things, A: your goal is to stop the threat and B: you are not guaranteed to hit each shot, it is essential that you have as many rounds as possible. If you saw the video out of Canada where a homeowner had to shoot a charging grizzly bear, you’d understand that having just one more round is beneficial. Having 15+ rounds may be impractical for everyday concealed carrying, but states have no justifiable reason to remove that choice from citizens. Using made up Supreme Court language, it places “an undue burden” on citizens.
Secondly, the discussion of mental health laws always comes up whenever there is a shooting. It’s a much needed conversation, yet it always demonstrates two misunderstandings. One, liberals are still clueless when it comes to who is and isn’t a prohibited possessor. Two, current practices are usually followed and cannot possibly catch all crazies (because of de-institutionalization).
The shooter was not a mental defective (category of prohibited possessors) because mental health professionals determined that he was not a threat to himself or others. Throwing more money at mental health facilities does not change that finding. Meanwhile, no one wants to talk about how those with Anti-Social Personality Disorder and those suffering from psychopathy are never prohibited possessors unless they have a felony conviction.
A couple weeks ago The Resurgent ran a video of Justice Elana Kagan discussing her hunting trips with Justice Scalia. Liberals are to firearms what Todd Akin is to rape and abortion. Don't be like Todd Akin. Be like Elana Kagan. Go shooting, go hunting, learn about firearms. Even if you think they are bad for the country. When events like the shooting in California happen, at least then you won't be uneducated. If liberals want some policy changes, they have to know what they are talking about first.