The Golden State has at least 107 gun control laws on the books, laws that were debated, passed and signed under a Capitol dome that gleams above the deadliest of Sunday's crime scenes."

Any reasonable person would conclude that the latest mass murder demonstrates that gun control doesn't work. But the gun-control crowd is far from reasonable. Their conclusion? They say that the shooting demonstrates that we need even more gun control.

Question: If California's stringent gun-control laws didn't prevent this latest mass killing, why would more stringent gun-control laws prevent future mass killings? 

In other words, if the shooters in the latest shooting spree chose to violate California's gun-control laws, why should we assume that shooters in the future will obey California's gun-control laws?

In fact, what the gun-control crowd cannot see is that enacting even more stringent gun-control laws will actually encourage more shootings. Why is that so? Because the shooters know that most Californians are disarmed and, therefore, unable to defend themselves against the illegal shooters. 

Think of it this way: If you are a shooter planning to kill a large number of people, where would you choose to shoot: (1) at a gun show in Texas or (2) at a county fair in California where carrying a gun is a felony? 

Any reasonable shooter would obviously choose (2) or any other gun-free zone. When he does so, he can safely assume that most everyone will be defenseless. That's because most people do not want to take the chance of incurring a felony conviction and several years in a penitentiary for illegally carrying a firearm. On the other hand, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, if a shooter doesn't give a hoot for a law against murder, he's not going to give a hoot for a law that makes it illegal for him to carry a gun that he intends to use to commit his murders.