How to prevent multiple murders. The Elliot Rodger Story.

       If you didn't know already, Elliot Rodger was a troubled young man in California.  His father was an assistant director of the Hunger Games.  He killed 6 people on the 23rd of May, as part of a revenge plot.  (source).  Apparently he felt that not getting laid in college was the fault of the women who didn't sleep with him.

       This story is much worse than it sounds, however.  The police had several run-ins with him, at the behest of his family.  The most recent on April 30th.  Each time they completely failed to do what was needed.  The insane young man even wrote up a long winded rant about how, if they had bothered to search his place, he would not have been able to move forward.

       So, in short; his family, feeling concerned for his mental health based on documented, easily referenced, online actions, contacted the authorities.  The same authorities we are supposed to trust to protect us, despite supreme court ruling that they are not required to.  (Unfortunately factual ruling, source.).  These authorities did what they always do.  Nothing until someone dies.

       So we all know that making something illegal can't keep anyone from getting it.  So where he got the guns is no mystery.  No one is currently saying if they were attained legally or not, but since legally purchased firearms can be readily traced, I'm guessing they were black market.  (Edit: it has since come to light that his firearms were legally purchased.)  This has not stopped that paragon of unbiased reporting, the Daily News, (Heavy sarcasm), from employing their typical tactic of demanding more gun control, by quoting someone stating exactly what they want to say.  (Source).  Oddly, no one is talking about the housemates he stabbed repeatedly, after writing that he would do it.

       Apparently it is never too early to politicize the deaths of the innocent at the hands of a madman.  So on that note I will do the same.  Since it was asserted that more gun control would fix the problem, despite happening in one of the most restrictive states in the country, (funny how often that happens), I will state: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur".  Or in the modern vernacular: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".  (Hitchens' Razor).

       Insane persons are already unable to legally purchase firearms.  Logic dictates therefore, that more restrictions would not have fixed this.  To be fair the person they quoted was a grieving father, and probably not at his most logical.  I pass no judgement on him, only the press who trotted him out as an excuse to forward a misguided agenda.

       This is a case where all of the rules were followed, and the authorities failed.  They failed each victim.  They failed their families.  They failed us.  Mostly though, they failed the gun-control agenda.  Had they acted, when they were informed of the problem, this troubled young man would still be alive, and getting help.  As it stands they have proven that lax enforcement, is now as it ever was, the problem.  More laws wont fix laziness.



      

How to argue Pro Second Amendment

There was something of a stir the other day on the reddits about the argument that "criminals don't obey laws" not being a valid point in the gun control debate.  User Frostiken raised the point and I was blown away.  

First, it was stated, quite correctly, that the above line of reasoning is an argument against having any laws, not any particular one.  While I know people so Libertarian/Anarchist, that they would argue in favor of that point, (not having laws) I am not one of them.  OK, so now you have my attention, please continue.  (http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1wrfcy/found_in_my_local_paper/cf605d6?context=3)

The example given was for drunk driving.  This roughly equates to murder, for our argument.  See, it is not illegal to drink.  Nor is it illegal to drive.  It is not illegal to own a car and drink, or to own booze and drive.  It is only illegal to both be drunk, and be driving, simultaneously.  This does not inconvenience the law-abiding, but it does allow for the punishment of criminals.  

Compare this to the laws about owning firearms and you quickly see that A: murder is already quite illegal, and B: the laws are not put in place to punish criminals, only to hinder the law-abiding.  The presumption, much unlike alcohol, is that merely owning a gun makes you a danger to your fellow man.  I won't bore you with the details of firearm deaths vs. driving deaths, you can google that.  (or click here, that's cool too.  http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/firearm-deaths-vs-vehicle-deaths)

All of the gun laws we have are a direct punishment on people who have done nothing wrong.  (Paraprhasing u/Frostiken)  And bearing in mind that this is for something that is supposed to be a right, unlike driving which is a privilege.  Frostiken then listed several analogs of gun laws, expressed as regulating alcohol.  I have copypasta-d below in it's entirety.  

Banning every alcoholic drink over 35 proof (Hughes amendment)

Banning any alcohol bottle or can that holds more than 360ml (Magazine limits)

Banning mixed drinks that contain more than two alcoholic ingredients (Assault Weapon Ban)

Require a 30 minute 'waiting period' between all purchases of shots (Handgun waiting periods)

In several states including California you'd have to buy a special 'liquor license' that requires you to undergo mandatory training and pay annual fees to the state to be allowed to drink (Licensing)

All bottles and cans in California have a little plastic device inside that blocks the neck or the mouth when you pour it, so you can only drink a little bit at a time (Bullet buttons)

Buying a hip flask would require getting permission from the ATF and a background check and another tax (NFA)

Any alcoholic container with a 'wide mouth' is banned and requires going through the ATF as well (Caliber limits / Destructive devices).

Drinking alcohol near a school is a felony (Gun Free School Zone Act)

Drinking near a road is a felony, drinking pretty much anywhere except your house or a place with a license to serve alcohol is pretty much a felony (Various laws regarding where a firearm can be discharged)

Successfully fight the '7-11 loophole' where 'anyone can buy alcohol face-to-face without showing their ID!' by mandating that you go down to the nearest liquor store before you hand your friend a beer, so that the clerk can verify that he's 21 (Banning private sales)

Vast majority of alcohol made overseas is completely banned because it has 'no recreational purpose' (922(r))

Any alcohol that is imported must have a certain number of ingredients that are sourced from the US. If you make a mixed drink with these with another ingredient that isn't from the US, you're committing a felony (922(r))

If it seems this is a bit ridiculous, it is.  It is completely, absolutely ridiculous.  Not the example above; the fact that we are allowing the chipping-away of a sacrosanct right, guaranteed not granted, by our constitution.  The rights listed there are inherent to being a free people, and therefore can neither be granted, nor removed.  We need to remember that.