cavala strikes back!

[Anthonysmanifesto]

apparently the good doctor didn't like our comments on that sales pitch for micro stamping on his website

see article here (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/06/when_all_firear.html).

[HK fan]

that haircut distracts me from his argument

[Smokeybehr]

He's another moonbat. He graduated from Berkeley, after all.

I love his straw arguments. So typical of the nanny-staters.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Dont you guys get it...

If microstamping could save just one life, well, then its worth trampling the Constitutional rights of law abiding Americans.

[schizrade2]

This guy is the worst writer ever.

[simonov]

that haircut distracts me from his argument

You mean rug, don't you?

[Socal858]

uh oh, looks liek criminals will be going back to the evil black six shooters!

[Kestryll]

The reply I am looking at posting:

Legislation that would require “micro stamping” of cartridges from semi-automatic weapons (which typically eject their spent cartridges after firing) has engendered virulent criticisms from the usual suspects.

Ah yes, let’s start with the tried and true classic, demean those you oppose by referring to then in a ‘cutesy’ manner to set the “oh, them again’ tone. The ‘Usual Suspects’, those citizens who ‘usually’ feel that the Constitution is the basis for our laws and that individual rights and responsibilities are the cornerstones of our Nation, would that be who your are referring to?

Their basic argument is the same they have used for decades. They posit a brilliant criminal who will think of ways to evade the laws, leaving only us dumb honest people to get entangled in a “legal web”, unconstitutional bureaucracy and so on.

So it is unfathomable by you that a criminal, who makes a career out of defying the law and avoiding the Police might be just a bit smarter than the potted plant in your office?
Frankly I think the ‘basic argument’ that criminals have no intent to get caught and will endeavor not to is a valid one. What is the rate of arrest and conviction in most major cities? 90%? 70%? What was that? Lower? 50%? 40%? Lower still? How can this be? Those criminals are simple fools, barely able to breathe without mechanical help!? Are you actually telling us that the Police Departments in our major cities are so inept and so ineffective that a collection of simpletons can outsmart them? Simply stunning.
You characterization of the law abiding citizen that most 2nd Amendment supporters concern themselves with as ‘dumb honest people’ is very telling. I suppose they should all be glad that someone of your obvious intellect is there to tell them what is best for them.

Well, maybe criminals aren’t as ingenious as these soldiers of the 2nd amendment.
Or perhaps neither of the above are as foolish and stupid as you wish to portray

Let’s look at their arguments.
Oh yes please, lets.
1. Criminals will use guns without microstamping! Sure, initially, but by 2025 all semi’s will have microstamping. As will all ammunition. Maybe they’ll police their brass. Maybe some won’t. Maybe some dumb crooks will be caught that aren’t caught now?

So by 2025 all the firearms that exist today will have simply vanished, as will have the means to remove any ‘stamping device’? No offense but your lack of knowledge of firearms is starting to show.
I would guess you are not aware that rifles and handguns from as far back as WWI are still readily available. So your target date for a 100% arrest rate is about 75 years off.
And again this is all dependent on your supposition that our woefully simpleminded criminal doesn’t pick up a paper or read a book. A rather tenuous thing to hang the safety of mankind on isn’t it?

2.Revolvers don’t eject cartridges. Yes, and don’t fire as quickly as semi’s. That’s probably why semi’s are the weapon of choice in 70% of the homicides? So killers revert to six shooters and some people live. What’s wrong with that?

Again I must ask, do you not feel that you should make some minor attempt to familiarize yourself with your subject mater before offering your opinions to the world?
A revolver and a self-loading pistol both fire once per trigger pull and only as fast as he user can manipulate the trigger. In fact a gentleman using a revolver holds the current speed shooting record.
More appalling is your acceptance of the loss of life to a revolver just because some people get to live. What a disturbing insight in to your psyche.

3. They’ll just collect casings at the range and throw them on the ground at the crime scene to fool the police. So let’s require shooters at the range to police their brass. (We all will after that knock on the door informing us that one of our casings was found as a result of a CSI)

Ahh, so the onus is placed on the law abiding citizen to ‘prove his innocence’ rather than on the State to prove guilt. Police your brass lest the State decide you are guilty.
We can’t put any undo expectation on the criminal, that would violate his/her rights but we can heap multiple requirements on those who obey the laws, of what value are their rights?

4. Criminals use stolen guns anyway. (or so second amendment advocates claim). Well some do. Some also purchase guns from legal owners without going through the necessary transfer procedures. Micro stamping would allow the police to trace the weapon back to its’ original owner. That person might claim the weapon was ‘stolen’ – but how many ‘stolen’ weapons will we allow him? If nothing else police could check out crimes in the area of the ‘stolen’weapon.

Again, your lack of familiarity of what you are discussing is showing through.
A criminal buying a gun from another person is already guilty of several crimes and so is the other individual. If these laws are not enough to stop them why will this one be any different?
But is that really a concern? Are laws like this really intended to ‘solve crimes’? Of course not, they are intended as one more hurdle for those who obey the law and one more thing to ignore for those who do not.

And we would have an empirical base from which to judge how common it is to have guns ‘stolen’, whether there isn’t a pattern of negligence on the part of the ‘crime victim’ requiring further storage, safety regulations, And so on.

Again, see the response to point three, let us burden and impose more requirements on the law abiding. That will make us all safer.

5. Criminals will file off the microstamping. Some will. But many people turn to crime because of their unwillingness to work. Let’s not postulate criminals that are not only clever but also hardworking as a rationale to oppose reasonable efforts to restrict the use of guns in crime.

Yes, let’s not consider that criminals are smart enough to evade capture, that would require us to face reality and admit some very uncomfortable truths!
After all, no criminal files the serial number off of a firearm, do they? No criminal puts different plates on a stolen car do they? They don’t take the time and effort to acquire or fabricate phony Ids do they?
Of course not! That’s all Hollywood and fantasy stuff!
How dare we consider reality in our efforts to curtail the rights of the law abiding!?

6. This will raise the cost of ammo by as much as 50 cents, making it impossible for any but the rich to be shooters. Yeah, the rich and the brilliant criminals. The “poor” use their discretionary income to buy food not firearms.

Who among society has the most need to defend themselves? Those who live in ‘good’ neighborhoods behind security gates and private guards or those who live in the high crime area people like you tell your driver to avoid after sundown?
Again I am astonished by you implication that the ‘poor’ are not deserving of a basic right to self-defense!
So how much should one make before they start to consider the lives of their spouse and children to be valuable enough to warrant defending?
How much should one make before they are granted the rights delineated in the Constitution?

7. This whole effort is a nothing more than a political play through contribution by the “micro stamping industry”. Actually, it is a play by gun manufacturers who want to make your current firearm illegal so that you have to buy an expensive replacement and can’t resell your now obsolete weapon legally. Well, you can always find an illegal buyer – then claim it was ‘stolen’.

Actually the political play discussed by 2nd Amendment advocates is more along the lines of legislating away a basic human and constitutional right by way of cost and availability. The act of depriving those not of the right social and financial ‘status’ the simple act of defending themselves and their families.
It is a clever gambit however to try to turn the discussion in to a ‘big business, evil gun manufacturers’ debate, clever but erroneous.
And let’s not gloss over your inherent implication that firearm owners are all criminals waiting for our chance to break the law. I would suspect that far fewer of us are willing to sell our firearms and report them stolen then you would hope for.

8. Instead of focusing on silly gun laws we should put a bounty on ‘aliens’. Well, they have rights under our Constitution too.

And so do citizens of this Country no matter how you would like to deny it.
So you are more than ready to acknowledge the rights of criminals who violate our laws and our National Sovereignty but not the rights of law-abiding Americans as written in the Constitution?
Very interesting indeed.

[tiki]

1. Criminals will use guns without microstamping! Sure, initially, but by 2025 all semi’s will have microstamping. As will all ammunition. Maybe they’ll police their brass. Maybe some won’t. Maybe some dumb crooks will be caught that aren’t caught now?

Yeah, all guns will have microstamping as will all ammunition. Is this a California law or a federal law? What an idiot. And, where is the microstamping going to happen? The firing pin? The barrel? Both can be purchased over the internet without DROS or any other paperwork. How hard is it to switch out the firing pin or barrel from a Glock or 1911 or how hard will it be to file off this stupid mechanism? I can't see how someone that is about to do a drive by or any other crime is going to worry about removing the microstamping mechanism or just pick up the brass?



2.Revolvers don’t eject cartridges. Yes, and don’t fire as quickly as semi’s. That’s probably why semi’s are the weapon of choice in 70% of the homicides? So killers revert to six shooters and some people live. What’s wrong with that?

He is making the assumption that all gun crimes involve a large number of shots. Except for some cases like Virginia Tech, somone shoots someone and its a gunshot or two or three or four. Whatever. The drive bys and other shootouts are usually gang bangers or drug dealers. These gangbangers aren't even old enough to buy firearms, so they get stolen ones. And, the drug dealers can get whatever they want. What does it do if a stolen gun is traceable to the person who had the gun stolen? Idiot. The Virginia Tech type shootings usually end with the assailant dead anyway, so who cares about tracing the gun?


3. They’ll just collect casings at the range and throw them on the ground at the crime scene to fool the police. So let’s require shooters at the range to police their brass. (We all will after that knock on the door informing us that one of our casings was found as a result of a CSI)

Ok, so everyone pics up thier casings at the range. Then what genious? Are people going to be required to keep their old brass? Or will the brass be dumped in the trash? Or, maybe reloaders will start buying the old brass? Eventually, this old brass will wind up for sale on the internet or somewhere else where a criminal will get a hold of them. But thats silly because why would somone pick up the brass from the fired rounds and then throw down other brass? They will just have to pick up the spent brass and leave nothing.


4. Criminals use stolen guns anyway. (or so second amendment advocates claim). Well some do. Some also purchase guns from legal owners without going through the necessary transfer procedures. Micro stamping would allow the police to trace the weapon back to its’ original owner. That person might claim the weaponwas ‘stolen’ – but how many ‘stolen’ weapons will we allow him? If nothing else police could check out crimes in the area of the ‘stolen’weapon. And we would have an empirical base from which to judge how common it is to have guns ‘stolen’, whether there isn’t a pattern of negligence on the part of the ‘crime victim’ requiring further storage, safety regulations, And so on.


I don't even know what the hell he is saying here. "How many stolen weapons will we allow him?" Are you @#$%$ kidding me? Microstamping will stop transfers withought correct procedures? Come on. That is already illegal. It is already illegal to do the transfer without a dealer. Why would microstamping stop that? So, the weapon is traced back to its original owner? You still haven't caught the assailant!!!! DUMBASS!!!!!
Microstamping will help us determine if negligence by the victim got him/her shot? WHAT????????????????? Is this stupid law being passed to stop crime or assist in statistics collection? Good god, do these people have brains?


5. Criminals will file off the microstamping. Some will. But many people turn to crime because of their unwillingness to work. Let’s not postulate criminals that are not only clever but also hardworking as a rationale to oppose reasonable efforts to restrict the use of guns in crime.

Ha Ha Ha. WTF? Some criminals will file off the microstamping, but only the clever hardworking ones will. Many people turn to crime because they don't want to work, and, filing off the microstamping to keep you out of prison is just too much work. Yeah, its also too much work to pick up your casings. Only hardworking and clever criminals will pick up their casings. But think of all the stupid lazy criminals we will catch!!! Hey, dumbass. If you want to start arresting stupid people, why don't you try those handcuffs on.

6. This will raise the cost of ammo by as much as 50 cents, making it impossible for any but the rich to be shooters. Yeah, the rich and the brilliant criminals. The “poor” use their discretionary income to buy food not firearms.

Yes, the "poor" use thier discretionary income to buy food, not firearms. They steal the firearms or buy stolen firearms at a fraction of the cost of buying them legally. And, once you make firearms manufacturers pass on the cost of this stupid microstamping, you will make the firearms more expensive, increasing the likelyhood that a crimnal will go through an illegal channel to obtain a firearm for a crime. Good job boys!


7. This whole effort is a nothing more than a political play through contribution by the “micro stamping industry”. Actually, it is a play by gun manufacturers who want to make your current firearm illegal so that you have to buy an expensive replacement and can’t resell your now obsolete weapon legally. Well, you can always find an illegal buyer – then claim it was ‘stolen’.

What? Is he serious here? I can sell my firearm on gunbroker.com to someone out of state. And, if they make that illegal, then, I will just keep my gun. But, instead of being able to say "I have kids in the house now, i'll sell my firearm through a dealer to someone else that wants it", now, people who no longer want a firearm in the house for whatever reason will have to keep it or get rid of it some other way. Illegal sale, illegal gift, dumping in the trash, tossing it in a lake, or how about sticking it up in the attic or shelf in the garage so that it winds up being forgotten. Then, it can get stolen and not noticed or, worse, junior can find it when he is digging through boxes looking for his christmas present.



8. Instead of focusing on silly gun laws we should put a bounty on ‘aliens’. Well, they have rights under our Constitution too.

So, you are spending your time violating the rights of law abiding citizens because you don't want to violate the rights of illegal aliens? Bravo Dumbo Asso!!



So, what they are going to accomplish is someone gets shot by a stolen gun. They trace it back to the heart surgeon whose house was broken into last year. They can fine the good doctor, for what I don't know, but, the stolen gun and assailant will still be long gone. The crimes of passion, or accidental shootings, or the dispute by friends are the ones that get traced. But, those are the crimes that are usually solved. The drive bys, drug shootings and other types of crimes committed by career criminals will still be unsolved.

[luvtolean]

His argument against filing off microstamping is that criminals are too lazy to?

LOL

I don't think he's necessarily an idiot. He's just out to ban private firearms ownership.

[HK fan]

You mean rug, don't you?

well it's hair like, and its sorta cut

[hoffmang]

Look ye at the haircut of the proto-stalinist!

-Gene

[Grakken]

The reply I am looking at posting:

PLEASE POST THAT!!!

[anotherted]

that haircut distracts me from his argument

where's Curly?

[Kestryll]

PLEASE POST THAT!!!

DONE!! ;)

[Librarian]

By 2025, all semi-automatic pistols will have microstamping? I don't think so, bub.

According to press releases from the Attorney General, in March of most years, California firearms sales were divided among handguns and long guns this way:

Year Handguns Long guns
2000 201,865 184,345
2001 155,203 198,999
2002 169,469 182,956
2003 201,865 164,143
2004 145,335 169,730

Handguns are about one half the purchases, with a yearly average about 175,000.

According to the BATFE’s “ANNUAL FIREARMS MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT REPORT” (available online at http://www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/) the distribution of pistols and revolvers manufactured in those years is:


Year Pistols Revolvers
2000 962,901 318,960
2001 626,836 321,143
2002 741,514 347,070
2003 811,660 309,364
2004 728,511 294,099

On average, revolvers are about 30% of the manufactured handguns in the last decade. Making the simplifying assumption that California handguns are similarly distributed, about 70% of the handgun purchases, or about 35% of all the firearms purchases in California, are semi-automatic pistols which might be subject to the ‘microstamping’ requirement.

From 2000 through 2004, California averaged handgun purchases about 16% of the national production. The BATF has figures showing a total handgun stock in 1994: 85,665,690.
o For a 'back of the envelope' calculation, suppose that the 16% for 2000-2004 applies to 1994 and before; that would be about 13,000,000 handguns in California as of 1994.
o The Attorney General’s reports show 873,737 handguns 2000 – 2004.
o Suppose further that the handgun purchases for 1995 – 1999 and 2005 – 2006 were at the average of 2000 – 2004: 175,000 * 7 = 1,225,000 more, for a total probably near 15,000,000 handguns in California. Add another 525,000 for 2007 – 2009, since the proposed law would take effect in 2010, and we get 15,600,000.
o Allowing for inaccuracies of the assumptions, perhaps 16 million plus or minus 20% - somewhere in the range 13 million to 19 million – seems a reasonable estimate for the number of handguns at the start of 2010.

If we continue the current rate of pistol purchases in California, that would be 122,000 per year. Using the low number of 13 million, it will take 106 – that’s one hundred and six – years to get the number of microstamped pistols up to 50% of the total pistol stock in the state. But we can be sure other guns will be sold here – probably an average of 52,000 revolvers.

Remember the BATF data for 1994? They also report 235 million long guns in the country then; under the 16% assumption, California’s share would be around 37 million, augmented by 16% of around 1.5 million per year since then to 2010: 3.8 million.

To summarize: by 2010, California will have about 40 million long guns and 13 million handguns, none of which are subject to microstamping, and in 2010 this law might have an effect on 122,000 new guns – 0.23% of the legal civilian gun stock.

2010 to 2025 is 15 years; 15 years * 122,000/year = about 1.8 million new semi-automatics with microstamping. We have a (low) estimate of 13 million handguns as of 2010, plus 780,000 revolvers 2010-2025. About 13% of handguns in the state seem likely to have microstamping by then - assuming arguendo that manufacturers would choose to make them and anyone would buy such a thing.

Seems pretty obvious this bill can't be sold on efficacy, despite the spin the innumerate try to put on it.

[M. Sage]

I just read a survey from the FBI where they looked at 50 assualts on police officers. Out of 34 handguns involved, guess how many were stolen? 33.

I wanna know what's going to happen to all those handguns (mine included) that don't have microstamping that will simply "disappear" in under ten years? Funny thing is, my handgun is over 50 years old already, and not really showing any signs of age. Another 50 isn't out of the question, if I don't abuse it too heartily.

[crs1]

This guy is the worst writer ever.

I second that. I can't believe people like that can even make it through life....and is he living in the real world? Dude hasn't anyone said anything to you about that hair? That haircut should be listed.

[easy]

"A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento"
"Mr. Carvala manages election campaigns for Democratic(sic) candidates"

Says it all right there....

[spgk380]

Dont you guys get it...

If microstamping could save just one life, well, then its worth trampling the Constitutional rights of law abiding Americans.

Exactly, which is why I'm in favor of enacting marshal law and instituting a national curfew, as well as requiring government GPS tracking devices in all vehicles with government controlled kill switches. Think of the children this will save!

[AJD]

That post by Kestryll was a massive nuclear beatdown of Mr. Cavala. Nice work!

[Piper]

What can I say, he's a liberal socialist elitist. He can't see past his own point of view. Logic and fact is irrelevant, feeligs are all that matter. What a dolt.





:gunsmilie: