As it turns out later it was an on site SWAT team (heavy security was laid on, Pam Geller knows what she's dealing with), not that cop. But the point remains. What could have been a Charlie Hebdo situation (hmmm... France is one big gun free zone, clearly it did not work) turned out instead, to be simply two dead Jihadi fucks. The only better outcome would have been if their fathers had pulled out way back when.
Another example is the Clackamas Town Center, where an active shooter retreated and committed suicide as soon as one (1) permit holder confronted him. Death toll was three (including the shooter). By the way this mall was posted no firearms, but the permit holder either didn't see the signs or decided to ignore them.
An aside (I seem to be full of them lately): In most states, someone can put up a sign on their business forbidding guns, and if you go in armed anyway, they can ask you to leave and be told to stay off the premises until/unless you disarm. If you refuse to leave, you can be charged with trespassing. There are some states where the sign has the force of law provided its of a prescribed format; if you violate it, then there's a specific charge of violating the posted area. (Illinois and Texas are examples of this.)
The murder of British MP Jo Cox yesterday involved a GUN (oh, and a knife, too).
How is that possible in the land where guns are so tightly controlled?
My impression from the news is that he made it. This will be happening more and more often with the growing availability of affordable 3D printers and plans and templates available on the Internet.
If anyone feels safer by being in a gun-free zone, they need to stop and think about who might want to disobey the restriction and why.
Personally, I avoid them when possible.
Nothing sells guns like a mass shooting:
Because it has been the perception of pro gun people that Obama wishes he could ban them all, he's been called the "gun salesman of the year" by some, for the past six or so years.
Whenever there is a mass shooting, there is a predictable push to "do something" afterwards, which causes a panic; people buy up guns and ammo, afraid they will not be allowed to do so much longer. After Newtown, the supply of almost all guns (even revolvers) dried up for over a year, and gun shops were getting ridiculously high prices for the few that showed up. Also, ammunition disappeared too, and in some places it's still--over three years later--difficult to get hold of .22LR.
.22 LR is commonly sold in 500 round packs known as "bricks" and the going price for them used to be 15-25 dollars depending on brand. During the panic, the small supplies that trickled out through walmart would be scooped up by retirees before it could even get onto the shelf, then resold at gun shows for a huge profit. (And some people actually paid $80 or more for a brick.) They're still doing this; it's nearly impossible to find .22 at a Walmart. The going price at other places seems to be settling in at about $35 a brick; manufacturers seem to have decided they're pricing it too low if some chuckleheads actually are willing to pay 16 cents a round for it. The next cheapest handgun round is 9mm which usually sells in 50 round boxes for 15-20 bucks though there are cheapass brands just under ten dollars (which is 20 cents a round). 9mm was nonexistent (unless you had great luck) for over a year after Newtown. (I could get into the various factors that make a round of ammo crappy as opposed to another one in the same caliber by a different manufacturer, but that'd probably be more than people here want to know, and that's assuming I haven't crossed that line already.)
AR's, large magazines and ammo fly off the shelves when a shooting makes the news.
AR's are the most popular rifle out there already, and, therefore, the most LIKELY to be used in a shooting...as that's what many HAVE to DO the shooting.
And, yup, the more the hype about banning stuff, the more is sold to get it before its gone.
There's always a big short-lived hoopla after a mass shooting.
Mass shootings by someone using some sort of assault or assault-type or assault-resembling weapon are the rarity. The bulk of shootings are with handguns not rifles and are not mass shootings but are one-on-one. A huge proportion of those handgun crimes take place in underprivileged neighborhoods by gang members who are smart enough to NOT use a gun legally traceable to them.
The paradox is that well-intentioned but ignorant folks almost always attack gun ownership, by adding requirements to gun store owners and people selling at gun shows (mostly dealers as well). You don't need to be the legal owner of a gun in order to shoot somebody with it.
A lot of the guns used in crimes are stolen, fell off the back of a truck (diverted from the normal supply chain, in other words), or are bought legally but have had identifying marks removed. Transactions between individuals are common and are often arranged through Craigslist-like sites devoted to gun sales or through "For Sale" or "Marketplace" sections in gun or weapon forums. These are all untouchable by gun regulation.
AR-15's and AK-47's aren't the main problem. They're hardly a problem at all. Most of them will never be used in a crime or terrorist act.
Transactions between individuals are common and are often arranged through Craigslist-like sites devoted to gun sales or through "For Sale" or "Marketplace" sections in gun or weapon forums.
I'll remind people that such sales, if interstate, must go through an FFL (who charges for the service) to be legal, and that does create a paper trail. Some states require ANY sale, even an intrastate private sale, to go through an FFL.
An FFL cannot transfer a gun to a non FFL (like your or me or the purchaser of that gun from Craigslist) without a background check.
That's assuming a law-abiding individual who doesn't mind leaving a trail of ownership, though.
But if someone were to offer a gun with the intent of NOT using an FFL to transfer it to an out of state buyer--well, he's publicly announcing his intention to break the law, and someone might notice.
The internet being used to violate this law is probably extremely rare. It's far more likely that it will happen between parties who already know each other. Which is an issue with any sort of "Universal Background Check" scheme. Colorado's law passed in 2013 exempts transfers to close relatives (e.g., giving your guns to your children).