California Bites the Bullet with Background Checks

From The American Thinker Blog:

If strong gun laws worked, Chicago would be the safest place on the planet. Gun laws didn’t work at Ft. Hood, in Orlando, or in San Bernardino, where the wife of one of those slain noted that the killers knew their victims couldn’t shoot back and a gun in a good guy’s hand would have made a difference:

In the past, California’s gun control laws already closed many of the so-called “loopholes” related to gun purchases. In fact, some of the weapons owned by the San Bernadino shooters, Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeem Malik, were legally bought within the state by a friend named Enrique Marquez. The man is pleading not guilty to providing material support to the two shooters, but he’s also being charged as a co-conspirator in the terrorist plot…

Amy Wetzel is the widow of San Bernardino shooting victim Michael Wetzel and she is also applying for a concealed carry weapons permit. During a recent interview, she speculated that the outcome of the San Bernardino terrorist attack could have been very different if someone had been carrying a concealed gun.

“What if someone in that room (at the Inland Regional Center) had had a permit to carry (a concealed weapon),” she said.

Yes, Governor Brown, what if? Guns used at San Bernardino were purchased legally and so too was the ammo. Making it difficult for the shooters to get ammo or reload quickly makes no sense if you make it impossible for victims to shoot back at all. What if, as Sayed Farouk reloaded his weapon, someone with a concealed carry weapon had used theirs to kill him?

Liberal Logic!