Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun la


#1

Fact Checker
Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws
“None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”
— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). interview on CBS’s “This Morning,” Dec. 4, 2015
A colleague pointed out this statement by Marco Rubio as a possible fact check, suggesting that it was almost certainly incorrect. It posed an interesting challenge, given the reams of data to examine.

But Rubio’s statement stands up to scrutiny — at least for the recent past, as he framed it. Notably, three of the mass shootings took place in California, which already has strong gun laws including a ban on certain weapons and high-capacity magazines.

It is possible that some gun-control proposals, such as a ban on large-capacity magazines, would reduce the number of dead in a future shooting, though the evidence for that is heavily disputed. But Rubio was speaking in the past, about specific incidents. He earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark.
The Geppetto Checkmark

Curses…foiled again. :angry26:


#2

The problem is too many “gun laws,” not a dearth thereof. One of the worst that plays into the hands of terrorism, of whatever kind, is “gun-free zones.” These are an open playground for terrorists.


#3

The problem isn’t too many gun laws, per se, but too many gun laws that aren’t efficacious. Firearms can be reasonably regulated by government just as with other dangerous implements. But too many gun laws are for show, and neither reduce violence or assist law enforcement to apprehend criminals; they merely burdon lawful gunowners without any corresponding benefit to the community.


#4

Where did you EVER get the idea that government has the authority to “regulate” so-called “dangerous implements.” Hammers are “dangerous implements” but I know of no government agency that “regulates” them, just for instance. The problem seems to be that ‘way too many people “think” like you do that “the government” should be all-powerful with authority to do whatever it likes to control the peoples’ lives and behaviors.


#5

The government could, I suppose, impose regulatory and safety standards for hammers, but chooses not to do so. But your statement is asinine - guns are INHERENTLY deadly; their purpose is to kill, not to construct treehouses. The obvious parallel is government regulation of the use of automobiles (registration and insurance).

And read what I wrote again - I’m opposing most gun regulations as burdening gunowners without any compensating community benefit. Why is reading comprehension such an issue around here?


#6

It’s your ATTITUDE towards government’s supposed and claimed “authority” that’s at issue…and cars are NOT an “obvious parallel” because I can buy a car, use it ONLY on my own property–or my friend’s and neighbor’s property–and I have NO legal compulsion to either insure it OR license it…just as if I were a farmer, I’m not obligated to obtain a “license” to kill game animals on my own property when they are endangering my crops, animals or property.


#7

Who the heck uses a car only on their own property? You’ll have to come up with a better example than that!

The parallel is that both cars and guns, when used for their intended purpose, are inherently deadly and therefore can be the lawful subject of reasonable regluation.

The intended purpose of a car is to go places (not just “use it on one’s own property”, which is just silly) The intended purpose of a gun is to kill stuff. (But, to use your logic, I’d agree the government has no right to regulate a firearm that’s inoperative and hung on your wall as a trophy.)


#8

The government doesn’t have the “right” to regulate ANY firearm…operative or not. What part of the 2nd Amendment do you NOT understand and are you ignorant of what the words “shall not be infringed” actually MEAN? The “intended purpose of a gun” is most assuredly NOT just to “kill stuff.” Guns are used to scare off predators a million or so times every year, for example, and often without ever being fired. Guns are used every day to sharpen one’s competency in handling them…infinitely more frequently, for example, than to “kill stuff.”


#9

The American mainstream media (whom Rubio has called Mrs. Clinton’s Super PAC) have attacked, berated and name called (in chronological order) Dr. Ben Carson, Mr. Donald Trump, Mr. Scott Walker, Mr. Ted Cruz and most recently Señor Marco Rubio. Notice who’s missing?


#10

Trump does offer himself up over and over again and if he’s actually not a fool it is all a marketing thing which seems to be working.


#11

If Jazzhead is right about the regulation of dangerous implements, I should need a permit to get a new paring knife.


#12

Liberals think that way.


#13

According to him, the government HAS the right. It just “chooses” not to exercise it. Which, is indicative of how warped is the thinking (or whatever passes for it) among liberals and RINOs.


#14

To be frank, Susanna; Jazz is seldom right about anything. There are many federal regulations on many power tools and powder tools such as nail guns especially the ones that use gun powder charges. I personally have found many young people in the construction pools don’t have the sense to know when something is dangerous.


#15

How about too many crazy people? Too many angry, too many radicalized, too many quick to go off the rails.

Im not going to get into the 2nd Amendment as it is your Constitution, a legal document the world over respects, but the excessive purchase of automatics probably should find a tougher barrier to access, unless there already are such barriers.

Ultimately, if someone is intent on doing something they will. What is a law to someone who is committed to terrorism? As I understand it, these latest cowards from Cali didn’t even purchase the weapons themselves. How would any law change this?


#16

[quote=“shockedcanadian, post:15, topic:47954”]
How about too many crazy people? Too many angry, too many radicalized, too many quick to go off the rails.

Im not going to get into the 2nd Amendment as it is your Constitution, a legal document the world over respects, but the excessive purchase of automatics probably should find a tougher barrier to access, unless there already are such barriers.

Ultimately, if someone is intent on doing something they will. What is a law to someone who is committed to terrorism? As I understand it, these latest cowards from Cali didn’t even purchase the weapons themselves. How would any law change this?
[/quote] It’s nearly impossible for the average person to purchase an “automatic”–whatever that is. You have to have a special, federal permit to buy and own any weapon capable of “automatic” fire. If you mean SEMI-automatic weapons, please explain why it’s “too easy.” The only way a semi-automatic weapon differs from a “pump” or “bolt” weapon is that the weapon itself reloads after each shot instead of the shooter needing to work the bolt or pump the slide. It still only fires a single shot with each trigger squeeze–just like a revolver–which, coincidentally, ALSO “reloads” after each shot by rotating a loaded cylinder under the firing pin after each trigger squeeze.


#17

Why?
An automatic weapon or semi-automatic weapon in the hands of a responsible citizen is a blessing to all and no criminal considers the Law when deciding what weapon they will use to commit evil.

Exactly, gun control legislation does nothing but put the innocent at an extreme disadvantage.

Every criminal with evil intent LOVES gun control legislation, it is the security blanket for Terrorists.


#18

Not very secure in this country, given the Black Friday sales…


#19

Actually, I do: OSHA. <puke>


#20

Do you live in a bubble? You’ve never heard of farm trucks? PLENTY of people I know, (self, included, until recently), own trucks that they use for the sole purpose of driving around on their farms and ranches. They’re usually ‘beaters’. (Ours was an S-10.)

The parallel is that both cars and guns, when used for their intended purpose, are inherently deadly and therefore can be the lawful subject of reasonable regulation.

Vehicles are “inherently deadly” when used for their “intended purpose???!!!” Good grief!

The intended purpose of a car is to go places (not just “use it on one’s own property”, which is just silly)

You better not say that to a few farmers I know to their faces. You’d end up looking pretty silly. (As if you needed their help.)

The intended purpose of a gun is to kill stuff. (But, to use your logic, I’d agree the government has no right to regulate a firearm that’s inoperative and hung on your wall as a trophy.)

What part of “shall not be infringed” can a self-described lawyer not get?

Like I was saying…