Thomas Gabor reacts to the Parkland Shooting

Oh Tommy Gabor, one of the darling “Researchers” of the anti-gun side. He has a piece up at Mike “The Mentally Ill Guy” Weisser’s website.

Let’s have a look:

Thomas Gabor: Gun Licensing Could Have Prevented Parkland Shooting

Pretty bold title, Tommy! Hey, I hate dead kids as much as the next guy, so you have my attention:

Tragically, fellow Americans, this time in Parkland, Florida, have once again been slaughtered ruthlessly by a young man wielding a weapon of war.

Adorable, you gotta get in those bullshit talking points right off, otherwise we might mistake you for being objective. There is no military on the planet that issues AR-15s. They are indeed rifles used for hunting, they were used by the police protecting the innocents in Parkland:

Oh and one was recently used to stop a spree killer, this of course won’t be mentioned, instead pretend these are military arms.

Again, if their side was right why do they need to lie so?

Aside from banning these weapons, we need to do much better in screening individuals for their fitness to possess, own, or carry firearms. In a January 8th post, I laid out some preliminary ideas for a national gun licensing system, although such a system could also be established at the state level.

Antis just love their “assault weapons bans”, at least until they get one, then all they do is bitch about how gun owners follow the letter of their stupidly written laws, and still continue to own guns. How many times has California revamped their AWB? (Oh and how many spree killings have they had?) Hell Massachusetts anti-gunners got so pissed that the AWB was followed they simply decided to break the law!

Oh and if you haven’t read my fisk of the article he mentions, you’s also crap!

Also when they’re openly calling for gun bans, can we now call them “Gun Banners” rather than their laughable “Gun Violence Prevention Activists” euphemism?

People operating a variety of forms of machinery and in many occupations require a license to ensure they meet certain requirements and maintain their qualifications to continue to engage in those activities. In Florida, for example, licenses are required of motor vehicle operators, barbers and cosmetologists, mold remediation services, contractors in the construction industry, and many others. If those operating cars and construction machinery need a license, it stands to reason that those owning and operating lethal weapons also ought to be licensed.

This is just the mindset of a Statist. They see the Government getting involved in every minutia of our life, and rather than questioning if that is valid, they use it as a justification for MORE Government. Hint, the answer to them is ALWAYS more government. We’ll be touching on that in a bit. This is also a total fallacy. Yes you need a license to drive on the state roadways in Florida, but you don’t need one to drive on private property. Oddly you DO need a license to carry in public in Florida….but Tom doesn’t car. And yeah, you need a license to be a barber, but not one to cut your own hair, or the hair of your family. So yeah unless you’re running a private security firm and doing public contract work, Tom’s committing a logical fallacy.

I mentioned in the previous post that expanding background checks to all gun sales and tinkering with our current system of checks is the low-hanging fruit with regard to reform as 95% of Americans support such actions.

Except when its put to an actual vote, then it tends to be 30-40% of Americans support it.

Unfortunately, the obsession of gun safety advocates with this system has led us to lose sight of fundamental flaws in the way we screen prospective gun buyers. Searching FBI electronic databases is not sufficient as, aside from clerical errors (seen in the lead-up to the Charleston church shooting) and the failure to forward data to the FBI (seen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas church shooting), every criminologist knows that official criminal records represent just the tip of the iceberg with regard to someone’s criminality and will miss troubling warning signs.

This is going to be the last he talks about this. We have a system, and it simply doesn’t work because the Government that runs it is never held accountable, so they do a shitty job.

This list could go on, of the last few years, every spree shooter had some sort of contact with law enforcement, mental health professionals, or the legal system, and those systems screwed the pooch and let them slip through the cracks. But since Tom’s a Statist when you find problems with the Government implementation of the law, you throw more laws on top of the cracked foundation!

I therefore propose a comprehensive screening process including:

-An in-person interview with law enforcement;
-Reference checks;
-Where applicable, notifying a current or former domestic partner of a license application;
-Successful completion of gun safety and skills training provided by law enforcement or security firms;
-Certificate of mental aptitude for applicants under 26 years of age; and,
-A waiting period of 10 business days.

This is the same shit he talked about in his last article, and it isn’t any less crap.

This would have stopped the Parkland Shooting? Well let’s look at how this would have worked:

In person interview with Law Enforcement? Hey there were dozens of those. The killer was crazy, violent, and anti-social….but they didn’t see any harm in not arresting him.
Reference Checks? Like from the police, or the school, or his parents? Again, all this was done, and NOBODY took any action.
He wasn’t married, but he did have a girlfriend who didn’t think much of him, and his interactions with her, and her new boyfriend got his ass kicked out of school. And his Mom called the cops on him constantly.
What would the safety training have done? Hell he’s one of the few spree shooters who DIDN’T shoot himself.
Mental Aptitude? He didn’t have any, and nobody did anything.
10 Day waiting period? That’s the biggest piece of crap out there. It’s a vestigial practice from the days when background checks were conducted by mail, and have this false claim of a “cooling off period” slapped on to pretend that the anti-gunners are forward thinking, not resisting modern laws. Plus, do you need to “Cool Off” when buying your fourth gun? And do you think this Jerk would have changed his mind having to wait a week?

But this is Tom’s solution! He goes deep into fantasy land where magically with the passage of his anti-gun Government goes from the Keystone Kops, to brilliant and efficient systems! (It makes me wonder what Tom’s Mental Aptitude is)

The in-person interview may have uncovered some troubling attitudes on the part of the shooter in relation to guns. He may have even been deterred from pursuing a license due to the need for an interview. With the private sale loophole closed, he may have either given up the idea of purchasing a gun or been forced into the illegal market. With an accompanying assault weapons ban, the supply will eventually be reduced dramatically, substantially elevating the price of an illegal AR-15, which can cost $1,500 with all the accessories when purchased legally. An illegal purchase might cost several times that amount, making it inaccessible to most young persons.

Boy oh Boy Tom is full of himself. Again he was in the back of a cop car tons of time, and every time he slept in his bed that night and never saw a day in court until the other day…if he was afraid of law enforcement, he was stupid.

Also for the “Supply” of “Assault Weapons” to be reduced, this would imply no grandfathering, and no means to make a gun compliant. Yeah we’re “Paranoid” when we talk about door-to-door confiscations of arms.

Again all the systems failed in this, and frankly every other case. I’m not just talking about spree killers, the REAL killers, the gang enforcers in our cities are also being ignored by the system, and THEY do vastly more killing than these head cases, and they don’t use “assault weapons”, they use stolen guns, and knives.

Hey but we should give up all our freedoms and money because Tom “Weapons of War” Gabor has our best interests in mind….so much that he can’t even be honest when talking to us.

The anti-gun world in a nutshell.

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Safety. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Thomas Gabor reacts to the Parkland Shooting

  1. Adam H Newton says:

    The fruitcakes really come scrambling out of the woodwork after any major crime happening if it involves a firearm, they all have the best ideas too! The same ideas they spout time and time again, many having been tried in various states or cities with no positive results, instead almost always backfiring on them.

    -Cueball (your old pal from #GBC)

  2. Ratus says:

    On that supply drying up, weaponsman estimated 412-660 million firearms are in the country.

    An estimated 100 million new firearms during the Obama administration alone.

  3. Alpheus says:

    There’s something else that bothers me about the “We license car drivers and barbers, so we should license gun owners!” argument: I have seen no evidence to indicate that licensing car drivers and barbers really makes us safer.

    Indeed, I’m convinced at this point that if we got rid of all licensing — whether it be for drivers, or barbers, or even lawyers and doctors — that we’d probably be no worse off, and maybe even a little better off, than we were before. Indeed, the difficulty it can take to take away someone’s license (and here I include doctors and lawyers) makes me wonder if the license means anything at all, really.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      And even if it did do some demonstrable good, license boards are as susceptible to lazy relaxing of standards as the law enforcement agencies that did nothing despite all the problems this shitbag presented.

      Plus most licenses are nothing more than fee collection and justification for bureaucratic jobs.

      Tom is also a huge critic for concealed carry training. As far as he’s concerned no state gives its CCW applicants enough training.

      But for a researcher, he doesn’t seem to look much at the wealth of data, as there isn’t an appreciable of bad shoots where ignorance of the law, or lack of basic skills were the cause in any states, no matter what the training requirements are, or even if the state still requires a permit.

  4. WallPhone says:

    > elevating the price of an illegal AR-15, which can cost $1,500 with all the accessories when purchased legally. An illegal purchase might cost several times that amount.

    He’d be surprised to learn that illegial black market goods, including guns, currently go for 10-20% retail value. Legality doesn’t increase cost, it decreases it.

    Compare the cost of a “hot” gun known to be stolen or used in a crime vs. a “clean” one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *