Another shooting where people aren’t allowed to have guns

Four shot, one dead. For all practical purposes private individuals aren’t allowed to carry guns to protect themselves in California. The results are predictable and tragic:



TEMECULA, Calif. (AP) — A gunman opened fire at a Korean Christian retreat center, leaving one woman dead and four people injured, authorities said.


The gunman, described as an Asian man in his 70s, was among the wounded, Riverside County Sheriff’s Sgt. Michael Lujan told KNBC-TV on Wednesday.


Authorities were first called to the rural area about 7 p.m. Tuesday after receiving reports about a man shooting his wife, California Highway Patrol spokesman Mario Lopez said.


And frequently when states allow their subjects to exercise their rights to keep and bear arms they want to make exception for churches. Do they have some believe in a supernatural force that will protect people when they are on church property? Or do they have some hostility toward people that believe in god(s) and secretly hope the will be killed in injured while at church? This example shows such a supernatural force does not provide any such protection. Until a better hypothesis is presented I can only conclude the advocates for restricting access to self-defense tools while on church property want theists to be helpless while they are being killed and injured.

One thought on “Another shooting where people aren’t allowed to have guns

  1. “Until a better hypothesis is presented I can only conclude the advocates for restricting access to self-defense tools while on church property want theists to be helpless while they are being killed and injured.”

    That seems perfectly logical to me.

    Is there any stated rationale other than some unsupported assertion like, “Well, it’s just not the place for guns…”?

Comments are closed.