Not long after the reports of the Charleston AME Church shooting hit the airwaves, the usual suspects were out demanding new, stricter gun control laws.
When Conservatives (unwisely) say they want to repeal and replace Obama Care, they are often asked, “Replaced with what?” to which they have no answer.
So let me ask the demanders of more gun control laws, “What law would have prevented the shooting?”
Would stronger background check laws have prevented the tragedy? The Charleston shooter had no felony convictions so passing a background check when he legally bought his gun was not a problem. As a matter of fact, the Colorado Theater shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter, the Santa Barbara College shooter, The Washington Naval Yard shooter, both Fort Hood shooters and Gabby Gifford’s assailant all passed a background check when they bought their weapons.
Would a law limiting magazine capacity to ten rounds have stopped the shooting? No. Would it have limited the number of casualties? Probably not. The Glock 41 only holds 13 rounds, but witnesses reported the shooter reloaded several times. He had plenty of time to reload, his victims were unarmed.
South Carolina has a law preventing carrying a firearm into a church. It didn’t prevent the shooter from taking a gun into the church, but it made sure his victims were unarmed.
An Assault Rifle Ban wouldn’t have helped since he used a handgun.
Banning internet ammunition sales wouldn’t have prevented the shooting since he could legally buy ammo at any gun shop or Walmart.
How about a waiting period? Nope. He bought the gun in April shortly after his 21st birthday and didn’t commit a crime with it till the end of June.
If the church had been designated and marked with proper signage as a “Gun Free Zone”, would the shooting not have occurred?
I’m thinking there is no law you could pass that would stop this type of tragedy.