We’re not sure if there’s some kind of harmonic convergence or planetary alignment in the works, but there’s an uncharacteristic amount of reality coming out of gun control advocates in the Golden State in the wake of the Oikos U. mass shooting. From a mercurynews.com article: “(S)hort of banning semi-automatic weapons, it’s unlikely that any new laws could prevent someone from going on a shooting spree with the weapon that authorities say One L. Goh used to kill students at Oikos University. Even some of the most ardent gun-control advocates believe that’s the case.” And now gentle readers, you might want to duck to avoid flying pigs . . .
“It wasn’t a failure of laws,” said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “I just don’t see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that.”
I think I sprayed my dog with coffee when I read that (it’s actually a pretty good way to make a chocolate Lab from a yellow one, if you’re interested). But really Amanda?
You mean that some of the strictest gun laws in the country and a prohibition against campus carry were totally ineffectual in stopping a bat-guano crazy killer bent on revenge?
Oh well. Hindsight’s 20/20 and all. That being the case, what—if anything—would have prevented or minimized what happened at Oikos University?