Saw this over at Sparky’s place and thought I would put my take on it.
I want to seriously ask this question:
Are California’s restrictive law concerning citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms responsible for a man’s death?
Keep that question in mind as you read the article please.
Lt. Terry Traub said a store employee called 911 just after 11 a.m. to say that a man had come into the store on the 1000 block of South Green Valley Road and was looking at two rifles.
Shortly after the shooting a visibly shaken Letitia Mello, an assistant manager at the store, said the shooter came into the store and said he wanted to buy a rifle. He filled out the required paperwork and she asked him what he was going to use it for. He was vague, Mello said, but he said his friends were hunters and he might use it for hunting.
Is it any business of the store employees why a person is going to use a rifle?
I think not. Remember, the employees of the store are not agents of the government. They have no investigative authority. They can refuse to sell a person a legal product, as long as they don’t use illegal discriminatory measures to do so.
For all we know, his reluctance to answer could have been due to shyness or plans for illegal activities. Remember also, we only have the employees version on the alleged ‘vagueness’ at this time.
Mello said something didn’t seemed right. She suspected he was buying the gun for someone else. Because California requires a waiting period and background check before a gun can be purchased, the man left the store. She didn’t expect him to return. But he came back moments later carrying a tool bag.
Now we get into the heart of the restrictive laws. California imposes a mandatory 10 day waiting period on firearm sales. All Sales.
The young man went over to the counter where the guns are kept, took out a small electric saw, plugged it in and began to saw off the lock holding the gun in place.
Maybe we need to impose draconian, restrictive laws on electric saws. Without such a device, the dead man may not have tried to obtain a firearm illegally, eh.
Think for a minute about the values and principles of the dead man. By this actions, it is obvious that nothing was going to stop him from getting a firearm. Had the sale gone through without a delay, without an interruption by the employee; he could still be alive.
Fearing for her safety and the other two employees in the store, she ran to a phone, hunkered down and called police.
I had to read that twice before I really understood it.
The store employees were/are unarmed!!!
Employees at a store selling firearms have nothing to stop criminals from stealing the firearms.
Notice how instead of being responsible for the security of the products they are selling, they hire people to do it.
Shouldn’t the anti-rights cultists be consistent and call for stores to increase security, including armed employees, in order to prevent theft and incidents like this?
Mello, who was hiding behind fishing gear, heard police arrive. She heard two gunshots and saw the man dead on the floor.
Mello said she was scared for herself and her fellow employees and thinking about her 5-month-old daughter.
“It was all really surreal. Is this really happening?” she said as she lit a cigarette and talked to a couple reporters.
She was concerned about the fellow employees, not enough to do anything active about it, and she was concerned for herself, not enough to enough to do anything active about it either.
Nope, she passively waited for someone else to solve the problem.
Now, I know that is harsh. But isn’t it the simple truth? They could have deployed less than lethal means to stop the dead man — TASERs, Pepper Spray, a Baseball Bat.
Yet they did nothing to stop the theft of a firearm and the subsequent death of a person.
Some time during the process, the man barricaded the store’s doors with a bicycle lock-type cable and fired what witnesses say was six or seven shots, Traub said. When police arrived they heard the gunshots, he said. Officers locked down the stores in the strip mall and stormed into Big 5 and shot the gunman.
Traub said it’s unclear how many officers fired and how many shots hit the gunman, but there was no exchange of gunfire between the man and police.
Paramedics started CPR but the man died at the scene.
Traub said “Everything was done in 5 minutes.” Police were on scene within 2 minutes
Notice that the police did respond quickly but not quickly enough to prevent 6 or 7 shots from being fired. Shots that could have easily taken the lives of the employees and other people in the area.
Now, the employees aren’t to blame for the actions of the dead man. I’m not saying that. I am saying their inaction narrowed the course of action available.
Shared Responsibility, eh?
So the antis tend to point to stories and shout….”See, this is why we need more gun laws” but couldn’t the case be made that those very laws contributed to this needless death?
In November 2010, Miranda was in an older model Toyota Corolla on Highway 1 when he tailgated a police officer, police said.
The officer changed lanes to allow him to pass but he sped away. The officer pulled behind the car with his lights on but Miranda failed to stop instead leading police on a chase that hit 80 mph to 90 mph.
The pursuit ended on the 1200 block of Buena Vista Drive where Miranda drove off the road and into bushes in an empty field where he was arrested.
Miranda later pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of evading arrest, according to court records.
He was sentenced on Dec. 7, 2010 to serve 60 days in jail and pay $480 in fines, according to records.
So he had a minor brush with the law. One that shows a lack of judgment or impulse control, should that be enough to deny a person his right to keep and bear arms?
Did the restrictive law lead to a perception that he would be denied?
I don’t know. But it is possible.
Because California requires a waiting period and background check before a gun can be purchased, the man left the store
What would his actions been had he not been informed of the waiting period? We can not know.
We can ask if it contributed to his frame of mind. We can ask if the ‘minor inconvenience‘ of the waiting period was the tipping point for his actions.
I’m not saying we should get rid of all firearm laws. Not by a long shot.
But shouldn’t we consider the negative consequences of the laws so often pushed by the antis?
Please join the discussion.