San Bernardino School Shooting Proves Gun Control Doesn’t Prevent Gun Violence

Within minutes of the news of the shooting at Northpark Elementary School in San Bernardino, anti-gun fanatics began chiming their anti-Second Amendment rhetoric, much like a parrot repeating words without understanding what they mean. They are blindly and ignorantly chiming for more gun control without realizing the fallacies of what they parroting.

Some of these anti-gun fanatics are comparing what happened at the Northpark Elementary School with what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School back in 2012. Some are also pointing to the 2015 shooting in San Bernardino when two Islamic terrorists carried out a mass shooting for terroristic reasons.

In fact, there are a couple of comparisons between the three incidents and yet there are distinct differences.

Al three of these shootings took place in gun free zones and in states with a number of gun control laws already in place. However, Sandy Hook was caused by a deranged individual who just wanted to make his name famous. The first San Bernardino shooting was an act of terrorism. This recent shooting was the result of a domestic conflict.

At Sandy Hook, the gunman was able to obtain his weapons legally, although a few professionals failed to alert anyone of the many warning signs they saw in him. In the first San Bernardino shooting, a neighbor helped to legally purchase the firearms used. In the recent San Bernardino shooting, the shooter had a past criminal record that made it illegal for him to purchase or own a firearm.

Trending: July Economic Report Should Spell Doom for Democrats

Cedric Anderson, 53-years of age, had a history of weapons and drug charges along with domestic violence, all of which are enough to prevent anyone from passing a FBI background check. Law enforcement officials have not yet said how Anderson obtained the .357 handgun he used to shoot his new and yet estranged wife, Karen Smith. The couple had only been married for 3 months, but a month ago, Smith told her mother that she saw a different side to Anderson and had decided to leave him.

Tragically, when Anderson shot at his wife, he inadvertently hit two students in the special education class. An 8-year-old boy died from his injuries and a 9-year-old is in the hospital trying to recover.

California has a number of gun control laws that make it harder to purchase and own a firearm. They do require background checks for handguns and anyone with the criminal history like Anderson is not allowed to purchase or own a firearm. So, where is the logic in the gun control argument that says stricter gun control laws keep guns out of the hand of people with criminal records and reduce gun violence?

Obviously, Anderson bypassed the FBI background check to purchase his gun or he had since before his prior criminal record which again is a violation of the law. Either way, the gun control laws in place did not prevent Anderson from killing his wife, and himself and accidentally killing 1 young student and wounding another. California’s gun control laws did not prevent him from carrying out his crime. The school being a gun free zone also didn’t stop him from taking a gun onto school grounds. We may never know, but he may have chosen to shoot his wife at the school knowing that no one with a gun would stop him from killing her and himself.

The bottom line is that gun-control measures already in place did nothing prevent this tragedy from happening.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.