Will New Gun Law Stop Mass killings?

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

[richardb72]

California has long allowed police who believe that someone represents a danger to themselves or others to take the person in for a psychiatric evaluation with a police psychiatrist. With that evaluation, a person could be held for 72-hours. After the Elliot Rodger’s killings earlier this year, California’s Governor Jerry Brown signed into law on Tuesday, September 30th that makes significant changes. The irony is that deputy sheriff officers had gone to Rodger’s home but did not believe that Rodger posed a danger to himself or others.

The law that was thus motivated by Rodger’s case would not have prevented it. Three of the people that Rodger killed were killed with knives. Taking away his guns would thus not have stopped those deaths. In addition, given that Rodger was planning his attack for 2.5 year it seems plausible that he would have obtained his guns in other ways. All this raises the question: If you really believe someone is a threat to themselves or others, why not involuntarily commit the individual.

In John Lott’s discussion on CNN today with the bill’s Assembly co-sponsor Santa Barbara Democrat Das Williams, he claimed that there was no cost to disarming individuals, only a possible benefit. Yet, assuming that the individual did not represent a threat to himself or others, disarming him leaves him unable to defend himself from possible criminal attacks.

The new law is very troublesome on multiple grounds: . . .

[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.