PDA

View Full Version : We WON! DAMMIT!


llamatrnr
03-01-2012, 2:12 PM
:( http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/Brady-Campaign-State-Gun-Control-Scorecard-2011_3839-1.html

Stonewalker
03-01-2012, 2:28 PM
It's so strange that the Bradys consider CA to be the strongest State for gun control. Here,
- you don't have to obtain a license to own a gun
- you don't have to register any guns except during transfer, and even so there are some ways around that
- despite being may issue, CA actually issues in many counties (THANKS CGF!!!)
- the DOJ has admitted it can't enforce AW laws on BB'd black rifles
- we have very strong self-defense language in CA PC 197
- we have state preemption

Other than the obvious hostility from the powers that be, we actually don't have it bad compared to NY, IL, NJ and a few others. This is not to say that we have a long hard fight ahead of us, but seriously, we need to realize how lucky we are that our legislature has been totally inept when writing gun laws. Rights are infringed mostly through inconvenience in CA. If/when we get a SCOTUS ruling on "bear", CA is going to be a fantastic place to live for gun rights. The momentum is building, and if we get that SCOTUS ruling then we should really start to see the culture in this State stop hating on guns so much.

I know I sound like a prisoner whose grown fond of his captors, but we actually have pretty effective gun rights compared to those other states. You can't even own a gun in NYC without special permission for crap's sake. Just remember how good we have it, and how hard we need to fight.

fd15k
03-01-2012, 2:37 PM
It's so strange that the Bradys consider CA to be the strongest State for gun control.

Could it be because some of their largest donors are in CA, thus they adjust their scoring system to give more points to CA to show their effectiveness ? :D

therealnickb
03-01-2012, 2:40 PM
But the so-called winner fails in the real world. California’s total violent crime rate was 5% higher, murder was 16% higher, and robbery was 97% higher than the average rates for the 0-ranked states.

Xanthus
03-01-2012, 2:41 PM
You don't say?

Munk
03-01-2012, 3:11 PM
Could it be because some of their largest donors are in CA, thus they adjust their scoring system to give more points to CA to show their effectiveness ? :D

How could you even begin to suggest that an upstanding organization like the brady bunch might use a biased scoring system?!? Aren't lies, rhetoric, and fearmongering enough?

CHS
03-01-2012, 4:09 PM
But the so-called winner fails in the real world. California’s total violent crime rate was 5% higher, murder was 16% higher, and robbery was 97% higher than the average rates for the 0-ranked states.

If you actually read between the lines, the Brady's don't like to state that their goal is to reduce CRIME. They only state their goal as reducing "gun deaths".

It *IS* logical that if you reduce the number of guns out there, and the number of people owning them, that you WILL reduce "gun deaths". Problem is, "gun deaths" includes murders sure, but it also includes things like suicide (which make up more than half of all "gun deaths" each year), accidents/ND's, and justifiable homicide/self defense. So reducing that number doesn't automatically mean a positive outcome for crime or self-defense.

They tiptoe around the crime reduction angle and just sort of imply it to people, but if you confront them they are honest about wanting simply to reduce "gun deaths".

The problem is, reducing "gun deaths" as a statistic is basically meaningless. I mean, say we outlaw guns overnight and everyone turns them all in. Poof! more than half of the gun deaths (suicides) disappear overnight. OMG! The plan worked! Except, they won't look to see if those people ended up killing themselves ANYWAYS through other means adding to some OTHER statistic (razor deaths, poison deaths, hanging deaths), or if those people went "wow, I'm glad I no longer have a gun because I'd totally be alive today!". That's impossible to predict. But their "gun death" statistic will look great. And then they can say that they were successful!

However, if they outlaw all guns and everyone turns their guns in (lets say everyone except criminals), sure the "gun deaths" will go down, but crime won't. Crime will very likely go up.

This is the Brady fallacy. They want to ban guns and reduce "gun deaths" at the expense of ANYTHING ELSE.

Ding126
03-01-2012, 4:18 PM
Winning is when we are mid to bottom of the list...in time

Stonewalker
03-01-2012, 4:52 PM
If you actually read between the lines, the Brady's don't like to state that their goal is to reduce CRIME. They only state their goal as reducing "gun deaths".

It *IS* logical that if you reduce the number of guns out there, and the number of people owning them, that you WILL reduce "gun deaths". Problem is, "gun deaths" includes murders sure, but it also includes things like suicide (which make up more than half of all "gun deaths" each year), accidents/ND's, and justifiable homicide/self defense. So reducing that number doesn't automatically mean a positive outcome for crime or self-defense.

They tiptoe around the crime reduction angle and just sort of imply it to people, but if you confront them they are honest about wanting simply to reduce "gun deaths".

The problem is, reducing "gun deaths" as a statistic is basically meaningless. I mean, say we outlaw guns overnight and everyone turns them all in. Poof! more than half of the gun deaths (suicides) disappear overnight. OMG! The plan worked! Except, they won't look to see if those people ended up killing themselves ANYWAYS through other means adding to some OTHER statistic (razor deaths, poison deaths, hanging deaths), or if those people went "wow, I'm glad I no longer have a gun because I'd totally be alive today!". That's impossible to predict. But their "gun death" statistic will look great. And then they can say that they were successful!

However, if they outlaw all guns and everyone turns their guns in (lets say everyone except criminals), sure the "gun deaths" will go down, but crime won't. Crime will very likely go up.

This is the Brady fallacy. They want to ban guns and reduce "gun deaths" at the expense of ANYTHING ELSE.

Spot on. Basically, if somebody used a gun, then the Bradys consider it (and count it!) as a bad thing. They have no intention of reducing crime or violence, they just want people to be committing crimes and violence with something other than guns.

LoadedM333
03-01-2012, 6:51 PM
I missed Oklahoma.:(

Cylarz
03-01-2012, 7:26 PM
I can point to any number of countries that have a total or near-total ban on civilian firearms ownership (Mexico and the UK immediately come to mind) and yet they still not only have problems with gun violence, in many cases it's actually worse than here.

I'll see your UK and raise you a Switzerland. There are no gun battles in the streets of Zurich. Why is that, Brady Bunch?

Jizo
03-01-2012, 7:27 PM
If you actually read between the lines, the Brady's don't like to state that their goal is to reduce CRIME. They only state their goal as reducing "gun deaths".

It *IS* logical that if you reduce the number of guns out there, and the number of people owning them, that you WILL reduce "gun deaths". Problem is, "gun deaths" includes murders sure, but it also includes things like suicide (which make up more than half of all "gun deaths" each year), accidents/ND's, and justifiable homicide/self defense. So reducing that number doesn't automatically mean a positive outcome for crime or self-defense.

They tiptoe around the crime reduction angle and just sort of imply it to people, but if you confront them they are honest about wanting simply to reduce "gun deaths".

The problem is, reducing "gun deaths" as a statistic is basically meaningless. I mean, say we outlaw guns overnight and everyone turns them all in. Poof! more than half of the gun deaths (suicides) disappear overnight. OMG! The plan worked! Except, they won't look to see if those people ended up killing themselves ANYWAYS through other means adding to some OTHER statistic (razor deaths, poison deaths, hanging deaths), or if those people went "wow, I'm glad I no longer have a gun because I'd totally be alive today!". That's impossible to predict. But their "gun death" statistic will look great. And then they can say that they were successful!

However, if they outlaw all guns and everyone turns their guns in (lets say everyone except criminals), sure the "gun deaths" will go down, but crime won't. Crime will very likely go up.

This is the Brady fallacy. They want to ban guns and reduce "gun deaths" at the expense of ANYTHING ELSE.

LAWs only restrict LAWBIDING citizens. The definition of criminals says it all.

radioman
03-01-2012, 7:44 PM
We won, we won. now if you would be so kind as to take that knife out of my ribs I'll give you my wallet.

jamesob
03-01-2012, 7:58 PM
I don't feel like a winner.

bohoki
03-01-2012, 8:04 PM
- the DOJ has admitted it can't enforce AW laws on BB'd black rifles
ally[/I]

what?

the assault weapon law is absolutely enforced on bb black rifles they better not have a magazine holding 11 otherwise they are compliant to the assault weapon regulations

DannyInSoCal
03-01-2012, 8:11 PM
You can't use logic to determine the cause/effect of the delusional naive Brady Bunch -

Passing laws to make it more difficult for law abiding taxpayers to own guns in the interest of public safety -

Is the same logic as making it more difficult for sober people to buy gas in the interest of reducing drunk driving.

It simply fails the bull crap test -

But it sounds good for sucking more money out of equally delusional naive donors...

Dreaded Claymore
03-01-2012, 10:50 PM
Victory! Horrible, horrible victory! :mad:

Stonewalker
03-01-2012, 11:01 PM
what?

the assault weapon law is absolutely enforced on bb black rifles they better not have a magazine holding 11 otherwise they are compliant to the assault weapon regulations

Alright alright, I was being a bit loose with my words. Sorry! But you can effectively own "assault weapons" in CA. Granted, we need to peel those arbitrary restrictions back further, but I'm saying that it's safe to say that CA has failed in it's attempt to ban EBRs.

It just amazes me that I'm able to legally use 30-round magazines in my M1 Carbine, but if I put an 11-round magazine in an AR then I'm suddenly deserved of prison and having all rights revoked.

Wow.... I just got depressed thinking about that.

Sir Stunna Lot
03-02-2012, 1:18 AM
quick! someone (who isnt banned yet) post this on the Brady Campain's Facebook page!

Marthor
03-02-2012, 2:05 AM
- we have state preemption.

I don't know what state preemption means. Is it like Castle Doctrine?
Help clue me in. Thanks.

chiselchst
03-02-2012, 3:05 AM
...and what better ground to meet your advisory...

Brady's, meet the CGF.

1-ZpHr5l0U0&feature=related

vantec08
03-02-2012, 3:37 AM
I don't know what state preemption means. Is it like Castle Doctrine?
Help clue me in. Thanks.


A doctrine based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that holds that certain matters are of such a national, as opposed to local, character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state laws. As such, a state may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law.

CA politicians push the envelope frequently and consistently.

kimber_ss
03-02-2012, 3:52 AM
The only way to win is to tie with Arizona. Never gonna happen, but it's the "gold" standard that all states would strive for in a "perfect world". Arizona is a glorious beacon of light, in the fight for RKBA. :coolgleamA:

Gray Peterson
03-02-2012, 4:06 AM
A doctrine based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that holds that certain matters are of such a national, as opposed to local, character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state laws. As such, a state may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law.

CA politicians push the envelope frequently and consistently.

No, that's not correct. "State preemption", in this manner, means the state has disallowed local government from doing something not authorized by state law. A good discussion of this was done in Fiscal v. City/County of San Francisco (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10313407778878388943&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr).

wayneinFL
03-02-2012, 5:08 AM
The only way to win is to tie with Arizona. Never gonna happen, but it's the "gold" standard that all states would strive for in a "perfect world". Arizona is a glorious beacon of light, in the fight for RKBA.

This^

Reassuring yourselves that you're better than NJ is kinda like the guy with a '77 Dodge on blocks in his front yard looking down on the guy with a '67 Dodge on blocks in his yard. Makes him feel better about his yard but it still isn't getting him anywhere.

Heatseeker
03-02-2012, 5:16 AM
Could it be because some of their largest donors are in CA, thus they adjust their scoring system to give more points to CA to show their effectiveness ? :D
The Bradys still have donors???:43:

Ineffective sinking ship if you ask me...who cares what they say anymore.

Stonewalker
03-02-2012, 9:19 AM
I don't know what state preemption means. Is it like Castle Doctrine?
Help clue me in. Thanks.

No, that's not correct. "State preemption", in this manner, means the state has disallowed local government from doing something not authorized by state law. A good discussion of this was done in Fiscal v. City/County of San Francisco (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10313407778878388943&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr).

The impact of State Preemption on firearms laws is huge. As an example,it means you only have to know the State's law regarding transport and carry of firearms, as opposed to knowing every city's and county's gun laws. Imagine this - in Illinoise you could be traveling through two cities that have different gun laws. One may require guns to be locked and unloaded while the other city might ban transport unless your going to/from the range.

From http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/illinois.pdf -
How do I transport a firearm through an Illinois community with an ordinance that prohibits firearms or handguns?

Illinois’ Unlawful Use of Weapons law does not preempt local ordinances from banning firearms. Persons carrying or transporting firearms through such communities could be subject to local firearm ordinances. Federal law does attempt to provide limited protection in these circumstances, but when transporting firearms in unfamiliar communities, it is a good idea to check with authorities on local law.

We have it bad in CA, but not that bad!

dustoff31
03-02-2012, 1:43 PM
Arizona is a glorious beacon of light, in the fight for RKBA. :coolgleamA:

I am pleased to report that a number of pro gun bills working their way through the state legislature this year should put us well into negative numbers on the Brady score card next year.

ElvenSoul
03-02-2012, 1:56 PM
You still can't get a gun in DC :(

DarthSean
03-02-2012, 5:02 PM
Apparently the Bradys never talk to stoners and other addicts about their opinion on the feasibility of gun control, regardless if they support it or not.:rolleyes:

radioman
03-02-2012, 5:19 PM
I support gun control, you should not buy more guns a month then you can afford, or your wife will let you. No one should have less then a 1000 rounds, after shooting. can you hit your target? then you have control, I support that.

Glock22Fan
03-02-2012, 5:47 PM
I will not rest until every state has a below-average score from Brady.

(paraphrased from the leader of the British Trades Union Congress who announced, in the sixties, IIRC, that he would not rest until every worker earned above average wages. If this does not amuse you, you might have failed statistics 101.)

Connor P Price
03-02-2012, 5:59 PM
I will not rest until every state has a below-average score from Brady.

(paraphrased from the leader of the British Trades Union Congress who announced, in the sixties, IIRC, that he would not rest until every worker earned above average wages. If this does not amuse you, you might have failed statistics 101.)

At first I was wondering if you'd lost it. Glad you clarified.

GWbiker
03-02-2012, 6:11 PM
I am pleased to report that a number of pro gun bills working their way through the state legislature this year should put us well into negative numbers on the Brady score card next year.

YES and with campus carry legislation going thru the political system in Phoenix, we are aiming for a -2 rating on the Brady Bunch schitt list...:)

resident-shooter
03-02-2012, 8:09 PM
Cali may be hated and called commiefornia by many forum members who say "omg i cant wait to move out", but its really not the most restrictive state. Not even top 5...

socal2310
03-02-2012, 9:13 PM
I will not rest until every state has a below-average score from Brady.

How about, "I will not rest until every state has a failing score based on today's criteria."

Ryan

wayneinFL
03-04-2012, 8:09 PM
oops