PDA

View Full Version : Daily Californian: Gun Safety: A Look at Laws And Flaws


jdberger
02-08-2011, 9:27 PM
The Daily Californian is UC Berkeley's Campus daily:

I fear for the future of the Fourth Estate.

Gun Safety: A Look at Laws And Flaws (http://www.dailycal.org/article/111835/gun_safety_a_look_at_laws_and_flaws)

<snip>
Assault weapons, like the semi-automatic pistol used in the Arizona shooting, allow for rapid and accurate spray firing. They were originally designed for military use, not for sport or protection.

Until 2004, federal law banned the manufacture, transfer and possession of many of these weapons. After the federal law expired, only seven states banned assault weapons. And because of their ability to hold many rounds at one time, large capacity magazines are considered exceptionally lethal, yet they are banned by only six states. Such magazines have been used in other mass shootings, such as the ones at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech and Fort Hood.

<snip>


Unfortunately, it's another disastrously researched piece of drivel.

Comments are open, feel free join in. :D

Dexster
02-08-2011, 9:39 PM
I say ban all AW Semi-Automatic Glocks.

Guns dont kill people... AW Semi-Automatic Glocks do...

(what idiots... lol)

Dreaded Claymore
02-08-2011, 10:04 PM
"Accurate spray firing" is the worst oxymoron in the English language. I think the term "spray firing" was coined by Josh Sugarmann to confuse people into thinking that semiautomatic guns are capable of automatic fire.

pingpong
02-08-2011, 10:41 PM
Assault weapons, like the semi-automatic pistol used in the Arizona shooting, allow for rapid and accurate spray firing.

a) How is spray fire accurate?
b) How do you spray fire a semi auto?
c) How was the Glock used an assault weapon (even under California's definition)?

Here's hoping the writer's career in politics (he's a policsci major) fails epically.

PsychGuy274
02-08-2011, 11:24 PM
OMG, I usually love responding to these things, but I honestly have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHERE TO START!!!

otalps
02-08-2011, 11:46 PM
Glocks are assault weapons? And they were designed for the military because they were exceptionally lethal? Uuum ok. I'm with PsycheGuy274 above, where to respond?

Probably better off calling him names.

MP301
02-09-2011, 12:12 AM
Probably better off calling him names.

:rofl2:

N6ATF
02-09-2011, 12:24 AM
http://www.dailycal.org/article/111836/open_the_university_to_student_carry - hm, they don't just print victim disarmament crap...

johnny_22
02-09-2011, 7:50 AM
Not a single pro-gun-control comment? So, the only readers of the Daily Cal are Calguners?

tleeocinca
02-09-2011, 7:53 AM
I say to those that feel we should ban all semi-automatic pistols, we should also make the police carry only billy clubs like they use to in the old days. If you want to ban these guns, it should apply to everyone.

jl123
02-09-2011, 8:54 AM
My comment:

"Most states allow residents to carry concealed weapons after they are issued a permit requiring a background investigation and sufficient reason to conceal a firearm."

Wrong. Most states issue a concealed carry permit with a background check. Period. No "sufficient reason" is required.

California does require "good cause", which is interpreted by bureaucrats at the county level to mean anything from there is basically no good reason for serfs to be armed in public to self defense is more than enough reason. It is a very unfair system which has its roots in anti-immigrant/racist policies of the early 20th century.

CEDaytonaRydr
02-09-2011, 9:03 AM
and accurate spray firing.


:confused:

Oxymoronic... Along the same lines as "Jumbo Shrimp" and/or "honest politician".

scarville
02-09-2011, 9:08 AM
Hmmm. Site seems to be responding very slowly on port 80 and their mySQL seems to be having problems. Wonder how many hits they're gettng from calgunners? Is Calgunned is the new Slashdotted? :TFH:

pointedstick
02-09-2011, 9:10 AM
Hmmm. Site seems to be responding very slowly on port 80 and their mySQL seems to be having problems. Wonder how many hits they're gettng from calgunners? Is Calgunned is the new Slashdotted? :TFH:

ROFL! So they're dopes about web design as well as gun control, eh?

AJAX22
02-09-2011, 9:10 AM
Columbine happend during the federal ban...

Sure kept them from getting one... :rolleyes:

particularly since it was ALREADY illegal for them to get the GUNS or ammo in the first place.

dantodd
02-09-2011, 9:41 AM
The Daily Californian is UC Berkeley's Campus daily:

I fear for the future of the Fourth Estate.



Unfortunately, it's another disastrously researched piece of drivel.

Comments are open, feel free join in. :D

LOL.... you said "researched"

timdps
02-09-2011, 9:51 AM
Cal Berkeley Democrat parrots?

The worst parroting of the anti-gun line I have ever seen.
As others have said, where do you begin critique a piece with BS in every paragraph?

Tim

PatriotnMore
02-09-2011, 9:58 AM
Cal Berkeley Democrat parrots?

The worst parroting of the anti-gun line I have ever seen.
As others have said, where do you begin critique a piece with BS in every paragraph?

Tim

Exactly, but it's not fair to list them as D's. I would bet their politics are far more radical than the average D.

Hell will freeze over before we see a well thought out, studied, fair and balanced piece on gun laws, or gun control from Berkley anywhere, but especially the campus.

CalBear
02-09-2011, 10:01 AM
Mine:

I only attended one meeting of the Cal Democrats, and left in disgust due to their childish behavior. They enjoy hissing at Republicans (literally, they hiss when anyone mentions Republicans). For them, these issues are more about "getting back" at big bad Republicans than addressing the issues.
As a Cal alumnus, and one time member of the Cal Democrats, I'm utterly embarrassed by this poorly researched article. I don't even know where to start.

First off, you're using the Brady Campaign as a source. That's already a bad sign. Why not use FBI or CDC data directly? It's certainly available, and is far more accurate that the Brady Campaign's misleading statistics.

You assert that guns are used more for bad than for good, but 1) your statistics are bogus, and 2) you didn't even consider the fact that most self defense uses merely involve brandishing a firearm, and generally go unreported to the police. That means even reliable statistics will be very much misleading. Estimates by the US DOJ put the number of defensive uses of guns at over a million a year. Over one *million*. Again, most of those go unreported, and we naturally never hear about them on the news. Most people are just interested in discretely defending themselves.

And yet there is more. Extensive research out of the University of Maryland showed more permissive concealed carry laws corresponded to a sharper drop in crime in the states that passed these laws compared to national averages. Good guys carrying concealed weapons can defend themselves. This frightens criminals.

You claim the Glock 19 is an “assault weapon” that allows for “rapid and accurate spray firing.” Seriously? An “assault weapon”? No law in this country has EVER classified a handgun like the Glock 19 as an “assault weapon.” Glock is the most widely used sidearm by police departments across the united states, and is probably the most common weapon for self defense.

Most states do not require “sufficient reason” to carry a concealed firearm. Most require a background check to confirm the person is not prohibited from possession. There is no “good cause” involved in most states. They are called “shall issue” for a reason. Your statement is completely wrong.

The most glaring misconception you have propagated in this article is that gun regulations make a bit of difference in deterring crime. How hard is it to comprehend that criminals break laws, so they don't care what gun control laws are on the books? They worry a lot more about armed good guys being able to defend themselves than breaking some silly gun control law. Look at the UK as an example of this. Violent crime actually went up in the UK after their gun ban, and it remains significantly higher than the rate in the US.

What so many people seem to miss are the multitude of factors in the US that contribute to the higher homicide rate. The US homicide rate has been higher for a long time, it's not some new phenomenon due to increased gun control in parts of Europe. America has unique problems relating to demographic tension, gang violence, the pointless war on drugs, income gaps, etc. that create its propensity toward homicide. Pinning our problems on guns is an utter joke. Guns are an integral part of our nation's history, and the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

My suggestion is this: stop being blinded by false information, and an urge to dismiss America's real problems in favor of blaming guns for everything. Time to man up, stop blaming guns, and address the real problems with America that create guys like Loughner and the gangs that rove our inner cities.

Also, The next time you trot out Columbine and Virginia Tech as emotional examples to drum up support for gun control, remember this: crazies and criminals can always get guns. Black markets exist everywhere. You can easily get a gun in Mexico and the UK, where they're practically illegal to own. Gun control only disarms victims, who actually follow the law. A single teacher performing concealed carry at Columbine, or a single student carrying at Virginia Tech would have stopped short the killing, and would have saved countless lives. Gun control kills. Not once does a criminal or psycho stop and read up on state gun regulations before committing felony murder or high treason by assassinating elected officials. To think gun control has any effect on bad folks is utterly delusional.

PatriotnMore
02-09-2011, 10:04 AM
^^Nice rebuttal^^ Good job.

CalBear
02-09-2011, 10:12 AM
http://www.dailycal.org/article/111836/open_the_university_to_student_carry - hm, they don't just print victim disarmament crap...
That is a great article. Very well reasoned, and it hit on basically every point I would have made.

IGOTDIRT4U
02-09-2011, 10:17 AM
Wow! For a college rag, that "opinion" piece was very, very badly researched and written. Someone paid way too much for an upper education.

BlindRacer
02-09-2011, 10:18 AM
Not a single pro-gun-control comment? So, the only readers of the Daily Cal are Calguners?

I read through all of them too, and didn't find a single one that agreed with the article. Nice to see that the readers of these things have a head on their shoulders, even if the writers don't.

Southwest Chuck
02-09-2011, 10:48 AM
The Daily Californian is UC Berkeley's Campus daily:
........
Unfortunately, it's another disastrously researched piece of drivel.

Comments are open, feel free join in. :D

Here's a better one.... Open the University To Student Carry (http://www.dailycal.org/article/111836/open_the_university_to_student_carry)

If only there were no guns, everyone would be a lot safer, right?

Evidence suggests otherwise............

In Florida, a set of "shall issue" laws was lampooned as converting the "Sunshine State" into the "Gunshine State." Maybe so, but evidence says that isn't a bad thing: Florida crime rates have dropped faster than the national average since the laws' passage in 1987 and, of 350,000 permit holders, only one was convicted of homicide.

.

cmichini
02-09-2011, 11:40 AM
I went to the article and read it and the comments. I was certainly amused.

I felt compelled to give them a few thoughts. I tried to be polite since when making an argument keeping away from the personal attacks usually provides the most credibility


I heard about this op-ed and its poorly researched facts and blatant pushing of a political agenda so I felt compelled to investigate the up and coming crop of journalists in our nation. Considering that it is the likes of the writer who may someday provide information and insight to the nation in the future, or heaven forbid - 'lead', I think it is fair to say that I see a bleak future for truth and fair discourse in America.

Similar to the other folks who wrote comments I was apalled at the lack of any evident effort to research, learn appropriate (or any) terminology or provide any logical arguments to state your case. Rather you resorted to fear-mongering and rhetoric which is terrific cop out.

I have to admit, however, that I have enjoyed immensely the dressing down and schooling you have taken in these comments. I am heartened by the fact there are still SOME people in this country that not only remember what the laws of this nation are, but they are also aware upon which concepts the country was founded (hint: freedom and liberty).

I hope you take the guidance contained in these comments and really think through what you have written and consider how poorly it reflects on you, your upbringing, your education and the university under whose masthead you printed this poorly written piece.

Regards and good luck (I think you'll need it)

2Aon2wheels
02-09-2011, 11:44 AM
my reply:



A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

what part of that do you not understand??


when you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them. you really believe a crazy person, or gang banger will obey restrictive gun laws? you really think they care about high capacity magazine bans? or obeying concealed carry laws? or any laws for that matter? stop making this country into a nanny state.


-Mr's Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, and the other founding fathers.

timdps
02-09-2011, 11:49 AM
Exactly, but it's not fair to list them as D's. I would bet their politics are far more radical than the average D.

True, although I was just using the name the call themselves

chris
02-09-2011, 11:51 AM
Articles fail comes to mind.

Connor P Price
02-09-2011, 11:56 AM
Some people are completely beyond redemption... Most of them appear to attend school at UC Berkeley.

Wherryj
02-09-2011, 12:12 PM
a) How is spray fire accurate?
b) How do you spray fire a semi auto?
c) How was the Glock used an assault weapon (even under California's definition)?

Here's hoping the writer's career in politics (he's a policsci major) fails epically.

Spray firing is only accurate if you can put enough rounds into the air such that you make a stream. Unfortunately we aren't allowed to have a phalanx cannon, so spray fire would be an inaccurate way to put lead on target with a semi-auto firearm.

Wherryj
02-09-2011, 12:12 PM
Some people are completely beyond redemption... Most of them appear to attend/have attended school at UC Berkeley.

I fixed it for you.

Wherryj
02-09-2011, 12:15 PM
I read through all of them too, and didn't find a single one that agreed with the article. Nice to see that the readers of these things have a head on their shoulders, even if the writers don't.

He hasn't quite progressed to the Helmke standards. He almost has his "journalism" down, but hasn't learned to disable comments yet.

Coded-Dude
02-09-2011, 12:23 PM
one thing i never understood. if AW's are not meant for protection why does the military and police use them to protect themselves and us?

SickofSoCal
02-09-2011, 12:33 PM
I love CalGuns.......remember in the late-90's, early 2000's? We were vastly outnumbered in the court of online opinion. I think a sea change has occurred among those in the 20 - 40 age bracket. The pendulum in swinging.....back the other way now.

77bawls
02-09-2011, 12:50 PM
kertong
"Why dont all you gun-nuts take your guns and go start your own country somewhere far away and leave us alone."
"We did! Who the hell invited you?"

Oh my god. That's how this country got started. Why don't they start their own country with their gun free utopia?

CHS
02-09-2011, 12:53 PM
Re: Handguns as assault weapons. The Supreme Court would disagree with you there. You can call them whatever you want, but the Supreme Court has gone on record as not only recognizing the semi-automatic handgun as the most common firearm used for self-defense, but that they are inherently protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

SickofSoCal
02-09-2011, 12:54 PM
Oh my god. That's how this country got started. Why don't they start their own country with their gun free utopia?

They could always relocate to the UK.......they speak english there too, wouldn't even have to learn a new language.

kertong
02-09-2011, 3:28 PM
Oh my god. That's how this country got started. Why don't they start their own country with their gun free utopia?

I was going to sit this one out, but as a U.C. Berkeley alumnus, I had to at least try and regain *some* credibility, haha.

Posted in with this, along with another follow up comment later on: "Why dont all you gun-nuts take your guns and go start your own country somewhere far away and leave us alone."
"We did! Who the hell invited you?"

SoCal Bob
02-09-2011, 3:46 PM
Posted in with this, along with another follow up comment later on: "Why dont all you gun-nuts take your guns and go start your own country somewhere far away and leave us alone."
"We did! Who the hell invited you?"


:King:

Gio
02-09-2011, 3:52 PM
Wow, just wow :eek:

TempleKnight
02-09-2011, 4:43 PM
I was going to sit this one out, but as a U.C. Berkeley alumnus, I had to at least try and regain *some* credibility, haha.

Posted in with this, along with another follow up comment later on: "Why dont all you gun-nuts take your guns and go start your own country somewhere far away and leave us alone."
"We did! Who the hell invited you?"

This might be my new sig line. This is the best smackdown ever.

Drey
02-09-2011, 5:33 PM
I am frucking speechless.

HowardW56
02-09-2011, 6:09 PM
:puke:

jdberger
02-15-2011, 9:34 AM
Apparently Griffin Dix of the Sacto Brady Campaign decided to weigh in.

He stated, ""Laws and Flaws" is the best article on the causes for the Tucson shooting I have seen in American media." ... :rolleyes:

jonyg
02-15-2011, 10:41 AM
do they not have an editor?

aileron
02-15-2011, 10:54 AM
Mine:

I only attended one meeting of the Cal Democrats, and left in disgust due to their childish behavior. They enjoy hissing at Republicans (literally, they hiss when anyone mentions Republicans). For them, these issues are more about "getting back" at big bad Republicans than addressing the issues.

CalBear... this was really, really good... but its apparent your emotions are involved in your response. :(

It didn't discredit your argument but it did diminish an otherwise perfect treatise.

Hope that doesn't offend you... I just thought you could of had more impact with the readers of Cal if it was without the occasion emotional slip. ;)

stix213
02-15-2011, 12:10 PM
here's what I put in the comments:
In 2009 there were only a total of 15,241 murders including knives, cars, poison, and any other possible method, not just guns in the USA. That doesn't exactly jive with the false assertion in the article that there are 30,000 violent deaths caused by gun violence. Yellow journalism at its finest. Try running a single google search to verify the lies from the Brady Campaign before you go to press next time.

Also, according to a Florida State University study, guns in the hands of private citizens are used 2,500,000 every year to stop a crime in progress. Usually not resulting in any injury of either party.

Lastly, the Glock 19 is not an "Assault Weapon" and was completely legal when the federal AW ban was in place. Plus if you actually looked into the Tuscon incident you would have known that the killer had to use a standard capacity magazine, not the 33 rounder, when he was concealing his handgun. 33 rounders make guns impossible to conceal, so criminals actually hate to use them. The shooting stopped only because he tried to use his 33 rounder when his standard capacity magazine ran out. Its well known that when you load a 33 round Glock magazine to maximum that is will often jam in a Glock, but this guy doesn't know his firearms and apparently wasn't aware, because that's exactly what happened. Yes it was the 33 rounder that actually caused the jam and saved people's lives, good thing they weren't banned.

Damn do a little research next time

Librarian
02-15-2011, 12:34 PM
Apparently Griffin Dix of the Sacto Brady Campaign decided to weigh in.

He stated, ""Laws and Flaws" is the best article on the causes for the Tucson shooting I have seen in American media." ... :rolleyes:

Poor Dr. Dix. He experienced the tragic loss of his child in 1994, and seems unable to get past it. Understandable, in some ways.

His son's case is one of the few where a magazine disconnect, as the final barrier in a series of stupid negligence and childish error, might have had a life-saving effect. (Very brief description here (http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-07-20/bay-area/17436604_1_michael-soe-kenzo-dix-beretta), for those not familiar. Beretta was ultimately held not responsible.)

CalBear
02-15-2011, 12:41 PM
Thanks. I think it really depends. Sometimes emotional arguments can be extremely effective, though misleading. I know that sometimes I'll interject an emotional slam on the authors. It's just difficult to always resist. I'm usually pretty good at keeping this stuff out, but once in a while it leaks through.

CalBear... this was really, really good... but its apparent your emotions are involved in your response. :(

It didn't discredit your argument but it did diminish an otherwise perfect treatise.

Hope that doesn't offend you... I just thought you could of had more impact with the readers of Cal if it was without the occasion emotional slip. ;)

edsel6502
02-15-2011, 12:52 PM
Poor Dr. Dix. He experienced the tragic loss of his child in 1994, and seems unable to get past it. Understandable, in some ways.

His son's case is one of the few where a magazine disconnect, as the final barrier in a series of stupid negligence and childish error, might have had a life-saving effect. (Very brief description here (http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-07-20/bay-area/17436604_1_michael-soe-kenzo-dix-beretta), for those not familiar. Beretta was ultimately held not responsible.)

Thanks for the link.

I thought that Griffin Dix was just being truly sarcastic.

Milsurp Collector
02-15-2011, 1:05 PM
Whenever you see a reference to "spray firing" it is likely that the writer is getting his "facts" from the Violence Policy Center web site.


Bullet Hoses
Semiautomatic Assault Weapons—What Are They? What's So Bad About Them?
Ten Key Points about What Assault Weapons Are and Why They Are So Deadly

http://www.vpc.org/studies/hoseone.htm

6. Civilian assault weapons keep the specific functional design features that make this deadly spray-firing easy. These functional features also distinguish assault weapons from traditional sporting guns.

7. The most significant assault weapon functional design features are: (1) ability to accept a high-capacity ammunition magazine, (2) a rear pistol or thumb-hole grip, and, (3) a forward grip or barrel shroud. Taken together, these are the design features that make possible the deadly and indiscriminate "spray-firing" for which assault weapons are designed. None of them are features of true hunting or sporting guns.

8. "Spray-firing" from the hip, a widely recognized technique for the use of assault weapons in certain combat situations, has no place in civil society. Although assault weapon advocates claim that "spray-firing" and shooting from the hip with such weapons is never done, numerous sources (including photographs and diagrams) show how the functional design features of assault weapons are used specifically for this purpose.