Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

We WON! DAMMIT!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • llamatrnr
    Veteran Member
    • Oct 2010
    • 4194

    We WON! DAMMIT!

    http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/...11_3839-1.html
  • #2
    Stonewalker
    Veteran Member
    • Jun 2010
    • 2780

    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.
    member: Electronic Frontier Foundation, NRA, CGF

    Deer Hunting Rifles? "Let's get rid of those too" - Adam Keigwin, Chief of Staff for Senator Leland Yee

    Comment

    • #3
      fd15k
      Senior Member
      • Mar 2008
      • 1049

      Originally posted by Stonewalker
      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 ?

      Comment

      • #4
        therealnickb
        King- Lifetime
        CGN Contributor - Lifetime
        • Oct 2011
        • 8902

        Comment

        • #5
          Xanthus
          Junior Member
          CGN Contributor - Lifetime
          • Mar 2010
          • 44

          You don't say?
          sigpic

          Comment

          • #6
            Munk
            Senior Member
            • Jun 2010
            • 2124

            Originally posted by fd15k
            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 ?
            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?
            Originally posted by greasemonkey
            1911's instill fairy dust in the bullets, making them more deadly.

            Comment

            • #7
              CHS
              Moderator Emeritus
              CGN Contributor - Lifetime
              • Jan 2008
              • 11338

              Originally posted by therealnickb
              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.
              Please read the Calguns Wiki
              Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
              --Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"

              Comment

              • #8
                Ding126
                Veteran Member
                • Apr 2008
                • 4392

                Winning is when we are mid to bottom of the list...in time
                sigpic

                Comment

                • #9
                  Stonewalker
                  Veteran Member
                  • Jun 2010
                  • 2780

                  Originally posted by CHS
                  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.
                  member: Electronic Frontier Foundation, NRA, CGF

                  Deer Hunting Rifles? "Let's get rid of those too" - Adam Keigwin, Chief of Staff for Senator Leland Yee

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    LoadedM333
                    Senior Member
                    • Jan 2012
                    • 1691

                    I missed Oklahoma.
                    NRA LifeTime Member

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Cylarz
                      Member
                      • Apr 2011
                      • 416

                      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?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Jizo
                        Member
                        • Jan 2011
                        • 162

                        Originally posted by CHS
                        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.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          radioman
                          Senior Member
                          • Jan 2009
                          • 1805

                          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.
                          "One useless man is called a disgrace, two become a law firm, and three or more become a Congress."
                          the new avatar is a painting from 1906, escape from San Francisco.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            jamesob
                            Veteran Member
                            • Jan 2008
                            • 4821

                            I don't feel like a winner.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              bohoki
                              I need a LIFE!!
                              • Jan 2006
                              • 20782

                              Originally posted by Stonewalker
                              - 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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1