Charles C.W. Cooke asks the relevant question about the UCLA murder-suicide: “What law — specifically — would have prevented yesterday’s shooting?”
Typically, those who favor more gun control argue that America’s “patchwork quilt” of rules and regulations help those who would do harm to slip through the net. Furthermore, they contend that adding further barriers would prevent young men with evil intent from getting hold of lethal weaponry in the first instance. But it is hard to see how such criticisms can apply here, in response to a crime that could have been carried out with a double-barreled shotgun from 1872.
Good thing California recently decided to ban guns on college campuses, or someone might have gotten hurt. Like many mass shooters, the gun was legally purchased by someone who had a clear background. Notice how the media dropped the mass shooting in Houston like a hot potato and then gravitated to the ULCA shooting? Probably because the Houston story quickly defied the preferred narrative, and the narrative is what’s most important to the gun control operatives with bylines.