Recap of the last three terrorist attacks: 1.) A Middle Easterny dude killed 8 people by using his truck as a bulldozer 2.) A deranged man killed 26 people in a church 3.) A dangerous criminal went into a school and shot 5 people.
Now here’s a riddle: Which of the three incidents could have been prevented by a law? If you guessed 2 or 3, you’re moronic and we don’t want you here. Get out. If you guessed 1, you would be correct (read this and know truth).
Back to the Northern California Shooter:
BREAKING: Court documents show Northern California shooter was prohibited from having guns as part of restraining order.
— The Associated Press (@AP) November 15, 2017
Looky here, this guy already broke laws to break the law by breaking the law. With the many laws he already broke, would more gun laws keep him from breaking laws against homicide? Now we’re just doing tongue twisters.
While there aren’t laws in place to keep stabby homicidal Muslims from coming into our country on diversity visas, there are already laws in place to keep the last two shooters from getting bang-bangs. Problem is they’re criminals and don’t care about breaking laws. So if there were more laws, these two would break them just for funsies. It’s how criminals work. Now I feel like I’m repeating myself. Is there an echo in here?
Laws won’t stop criminals from breaking laws. If they did, no one would murder anyone else. Murder is, after all, illegal. All MOAR GUN CONTROL would do is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. That’s actually how this works, and that’s actually what liberals want.