Will New Gun Law Stop Mass killings?

CNN ^ | October 11, 2014 | Crime Prevention Research Center

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Nope.

Next stupid question?

[raybbr]

The police and the judge together can decide. In the past, you had to have a mental health professional testify that the person was a danger to themselves or others. The standard of proof has also been greatly lowered to just a reasonable belief.

I meant will the police be included in the psychoanalysis? Can we demand a cop face the same rules and interrogation they want to put on us?

[GailA]

Lets see Ricard Speck killed with a knife. Tim McVeigh with fertilizer, 9/11 killed with planes, Pearl Harbor Planes, mini subs. hitler with gas chambers.

Answer is NO!

[marktwain]

“Santa Barbara Democrat Das Williams, he claimed that there was no cost to disarming individuals, only a possible benefit.”

This is the crux of the “progressive” argument about guns. They claim that there is no benefit to guns in the hands of non-government entities.

Definitely a lie, but they are expert at lying to themselves and others.

They *must* not admit that there is a benefit, because then they have to do a cost/benefit analysis, and facts simply do not support their case.

[eyeamok]

It is laws like this that make me want to start collecting money to put an initiative on the ballot:

Any Public Servant that can be demonstrated to have made deliberate false statements during the course of their professional duties or actions shall be deemed a threat to themselves and the public, and shall be prohibited from possessing,using, or having control of or access to ANY Firearm or ammunition.