TexasCHLforum.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_californi ... t_shooting

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. – A man carrying two guns walked inside a Southern California fast food restaurant and shot four people who were eating lunch together, killing two — including an 8-year-old boy — before turning the gun on himself, police said Saturday.

The 56-year-old man arrived at the Del Taco restaurant in San Bernardino on a bike at about 1 p.m., walked over to a table and shot a man, a 29-year-old woman, a 5-year-old boy and the 8-year-old boy, San Bernardino police Lt. Jarrod Burguan said.

The man eating with the group was declared dead at the restaurant and the 8-year-old was declared dead at a hospital, San Bernardino Fire Department spokesman Steve Tracey said.

The woman, the 5-year-old boy and the gunman were hospitalized in critical condition, Tracey said. The names of the victims and the shooter weren't released and their relationships weren't immediately clear.

Owners of nearby businesses said horrified patrons streamed out of the restaurant after the shots were fired.

"I saw some people yelling and all of a sudden I heard 'boom, boom, boom, boom'," Jorge Garcia, who works at a recycling trailer in the same parking lot as the restaurant, told the Riverside Press-Enterprise. "I saw two employees run out of the employee door and then I saw 8 or 10 people run out of the restaurant and across the street."

The shooter was reportedly the step-father of the woman that he shot. The other victims were her husband and sons.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD9GENOTO0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People need to pick their relatives more carefully.

- Jim

Police said several other people were in the restaurant, but the gunman clearly walked in seeking the four victims. They said the gunman had a long and violent criminal record, but did not give further details.

If only there were some law that made it illegal for convicted criminals to own or possess firearms. Failing that, it should be illegal in California to carry a firearm, unless you're a cop or have some other need to carry recognized by a local sheriff.

Why should a lawful citizen not be able to protect themself and there love ones in california? Sounds like you want to trash the second admendment in California.

Huff9337 wrote:Why should a lawful citizen not be able to protect themself and there love ones in california? Sounds like you want to trash the second admendment in California.

It's called "satire". He was making a satirical remark. You know... like, "this did not happen, 'cause California's gun laws would have prevented it!"

Loosen up and get into the spirit of things!

The Brady Campaign gives California a score of 79 out of 100, the highest score of any state: http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/CA/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously it should be a crime-free garden of Eden.

If the Brady Campaign pushed for mandatory sentences without parole for violent offenders and confinement for people who are dangerously mentally ill (with judicial supervision), it would do much more to reduce crime than the easily circumvented laws that they want.

Instead they want to violate the rights of every law-abiding person because a few criminals and lunatics abuse the right to keep and bear arms.

- Jim

Interestingly, when you look at Texas' score, we score a 9 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/TX/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), meaning there are at least a few things we do that they agree with. That begs the question: If the Brady Bunch is the standard by which we judge gun grabbers, then shouldn't a perfect record on the RKBA earn you a 0; or, is it a case that even a broken clock is right once every 12 hours?

According to the Brady Campaign, we earned those 9 points for:
A) Restricting access to handguns for children under the ages of 16/17 - 5 out of 5 possible points;
B) Employers not forced to allow firearms on premises - 2 out of 2 possible points;
C) Colleges are not forced to allow firearms on campus - 2 out of 2 possible points.

What do you all think? Would a 0 have been better than a 9?

I suppose zero would be OK for bragging rights, but I would be satisfied with 5.

PC 46.13 enables prosecution of idiots (and I do not use the term casually) who leave weapons lying around in the reach of young children. It is not an impediment to legitimate use by qualified minors.

This state law also gives Texas some leverage with a federal law that I don't recall at the moment and don't have time to look up.

- Jim

The Annoyed Man wrote:Interestingly, when you look at Texas' score, we score a 9 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/TX/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), meaning there are at least a few things we do that they agree with. That begs the question: If the Brady Bunch is the standard by which we judge gun grabbers, then shouldn't a perfect record on the RKBA earn you a 0; or, is it a case that even a broken clock is right once every 12 hours?

According to the Brady Campaign, we earned those 9 points for:
A) Restricting access to handguns for children under the ages of 16/17 - 5 out of 5 possible points;
B) Employers not forced to allow firearms on premises - 2 out of 2 possible points;
C) Colleges are not forced to allow firearms on campus - 2 out of 2 possible points.

What do you all think? Would a 0 have been better than a 9?

Though I have not been a carrier for very long, I wish I could carry at work. I am in management and sometimes I have to terminate employees. Some of them I worry may come back with a vendetta and I have no way to protect myself. I do believe that CHL should be allowed on a college campus, this may have prevented some unnecessary killings. Under the ages of 15/16, that one I don't have an opinion about. Growing up on a farm in Kentucky, guns were a normal part of my upbringing from a very young age, but city life is different.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Interestingly, when you look at Texas' score, we score a 9 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/TX/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), meaning there are at least a few things we do that they agree with. That begs the question: If the Brady Bunch is the standard by which we judge gun grabbers, then shouldn't a perfect record on the RKBA earn you a 0; or, is it a case that even a broken clock is right once every 12 hours?

According to the Brady Campaign, we earned those 9 points for:
A) Restricting access to handguns for children under the ages of 16/17 - 5 out of 5 possible points;
B) Employers not forced to allow firearms on premises - 2 out of 2 possible points;
C) Colleges are not forced to allow firearms on campus - 2 out of 2 possible points.

What do you all think? Would a 0 have been better than a 9?

I'd be happy with the 5 points. Kids can learn to shoot using rifles but can't control handguns very well due to their motor skills still developing - at least to a certain age (12 or so, I would guess).

I guess this is where my social conditioning is getting to me. If we all have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, I don't believe that right has an inherent age limit. However, my social conditioning is having me say "What do kids need access to handguns for? Kids don't need to carry guns!"

redlin67 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Interestingly, when you look at Texas' score, we score a 9 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/TX/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), meaning there are at least a few things we do that they agree with. That begs the question: If the Brady Bunch is the standard by which we judge gun grabbers, then shouldn't a perfect record on the RKBA earn you a 0; or, is it a case that even a broken clock is right once every 12 hours?

According to the Brady Campaign, we earned those 9 points for:
A) Restricting access to handguns for children under the ages of 16/17 - 5 out of 5 possible points;
B) Employers not forced to allow firearms on premises - 2 out of 2 possible points;
C) Colleges are not forced to allow firearms on campus - 2 out of 2 possible points.

What do you all think? Would a 0 have been better than a 9?

Though I have not been a carrier for very long, I wish I could carry at work. I am in management and sometimes I have to terminate employees. Some of them I worry may come back with a vendetta and I have no way to protect myself. I do believe that CHL should be allowed on a college campus, this may have prevented some unnecessary killings. Under the ages of 15/16, that one I don't have an opinion about. Growing up on a farm in Kentucky, guns were a normal part of my upbringing from a very young age, but city life is different.

LOL. I had to read that twice...

"I wish I could carry at work" and, "I have to terminate employees" just sorta jumped out at me.

The Annoyed Man wrote:What do you all think? Would a 0 have been better than a 9?

I'm quite proud of my state for being the first to achieve a perfect 0 on the Brady Scorecard :-)

However, I don't actually give the Brady Bunch much credit for scoring accurately. I think there are a number of things Utah needs to fix before our gun laws are truly perfect. Constitutional Carry is at the top of the list, but also important are fixing our gun-free school zone law and fully extending the Castle Doctrine to peoples' vehicles and businesses.

IMO, Texas should also get some Brady points for banning open carry, since states that allow open carry "desensitize" our children to the horror that handguns are. I mean, if kids see a guy (or gal) peacefully shopping for groceries with a handgun openly visible on his (or her) hip, they might get the idea that guns don't spontaneously leap out of holsters and kill everyone in sight!

Purplehood wrote:
LOL. I had to read that twice...

"I wish I could carry at work" and, "I have to terminate employees" just sorta jumped out at me.

Sorry, it does sound kind of weird, but terminate is the term we have to use at my employment. It is a catch all for fired, retired, quit, laid off, ect.......

redlin67 wrote:Sorry, it does sound kind of weird, but terminate is the term we have to use at my employment.

The "kinder gentler" word is separate.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

redlin67 wrote:Sorry, it does sound kind of weird, but terminate is the term we have to use at my employment.

The "kinder gentler" word is separate.

- Jim

That's good, because we don't want to see ex-spouses terminating one another.