- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 67,782
- Reaction score
- 48,719
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
well, there you have it
with all of the documentation he has provided to sustain his assertion, how could anyone not agree with his conclusion
well given your admitted ignorance of this subject, I can tell you that 12 rounds is inadequate in many situations.
It ain’t paradise, but lots of people still see the future, for better and worse, in California. And as I said, the Mendocino-Tahoe-Yosemite-Monterey quadrangle is hard to beat.
well, there you have it
with all of the documentation he has provided to sustain his assertion, how could anyone not agree with his conclusion
Exactly. Why outlaw the 50 cal weapon?
Do you need heroin? No.
And obese people are not a threat to cops, unless of course they sit on them.
Obviously, some people on this topic believe you may be unprepared.
Btw, what do you have against California? Great beautiful, productive state. Just in the part of it where I live, the north, one could draw a line from Mendocino to Tahoe to Yosemite to Monterey and you’d have in that relatively small area one of the prettiest cities in the world, fabulous natural beauty in the Sierra, the Napa Valley, the Delta, gorgeous coastlines, etc. True, housing prices are absurd, thanks to our prosperity, but we try to address that as best we can.
What’s your recommendation to deal with the highest or one of the highest rates of firearms deaths in the developed world?
Generally in agreement, except for the magazine thing. Guy who goes crazy and starts shooting people should have to stop and reload before too long. Cops would appreciate that.
++ Again, if you were a cop, would you prefer to face a shooter who maybe only brought one magazine or one who brought several? Magazines with 40 rounds or 20?
Ok, my head is clear of my ass. Cleaned my ears and everything. What is the source of real gun violence in the US, and what does it possibly have to do with racism?
1. Unnecessary taxes
++ We have income tax, better than regressive sales taxes some other states use. We like the services taxes provide.
The highest state tax IIRC. A 8% tax rate that kicks in at $42,000 (single).
++ Still better than using regressive taxes.
2. Gas taxes
++ To build streets and highways, among the best world wide. Gas taxes are much higher than Louisiana where my son lives. You should see their streets, some unrepaired since Katrina.
Gas taxes are the highest in the US and were boosted because "we needed the money to fix the roads" because the original high gas taxes were looted for the ridiculous "not high speed rail to nowhere".
++ Definitely a dumb idea, for now. Such things belong on the east coast. But I suspect that if population in the Central Valley and elsewhere grows, it might turn out to be foresighted.
3. Waste
++ Recycling very popular, and creates jobs. Name a state without waste and you’ll see a state without people.
Waste as in the previously mention (non) high speed rail.
++ See above.
4. Over regulation
++ Safety. Check out chemical caused deaths/illness in rural Louisiana, where there is light regulation of energy. Trump recently legalized a pesticide that causes birth defects in kids before it was studied adequately. He eliminated a high number of injuries and deaths as a negative factor to consider awarding government contracts to business. These wouldn’t fly in over-regulated California. Thankfully. Your regulatory burden saved my life when working in a steel mill.
I said over regulations. Businesses sued/closed because the bathroom mirror was too high or a handrail in the wrong place.
++ Oh come on. Idiotic regulation happens everywhere. It does prevent injury in many cases. I noted the difference in under regulation in the 1960s, as I still have the scar on my leg, when I saw steelworkers much better equipped in the last decade doing the same job safely.
5. 1/8th the population, 1/3 the welfare.
++ Don’t know if that’s true, but big deal, we have more poor people or are more generous, but it depends if you mean people or dollars spent. And as noted, our prosperity has brought the problems of gentrification which creates huge problems for the poor. Our general assistance rates are in the middle of the pack compared to other states, if that is what you are referring to.
It is true... Dollars spent. And it has nothing to do with "gentrification". And less aid would be required if the state taxes didn't reach down into the middle class.
++ Your last sentence suggests that taxes on the middle class drive them towards welfare. Don’t think that makes sense, but if shown to be true, we should shift the burden a bit.
6. Damned texting drivers.
++ Agree with you on that, but think it might be a national disease.
I just threw that one in because I hate it so much.
7. The Parris/Lake Elsinore meth zone.
++ Much of SoCal shouldn’t be there anyway, but really? Breaking Bad was set in New Mexico, an otherwise charming state. In addition, opioids are everywhere, hadn't you heard?
Meth is centered in that area.
++ And nowhere else in the country? What great luck! What a service California provides the rest of the country.
8. Needles, poop and condom dodging in SF. (I lived in the bay area 8 years.)
++ And yet strangely, lots of people still want to live here. Go figure. Property values through the roof. I couldn’t afford to buy my home now, so there is a significant downside, as people commute long distances to work in SF. Misfit of all types have been moving west since 1849, we even named our football team after them. The world awaits your solution to the homeless crisis.
Institutionalize many of them until they can be stabilized on medication. Once they are on track release to halfway houses where they can be monitored. I know it is pie in the sky, but something must be done.
The .50 caliber isn't outlawed. What is outlawed is when you make *any* weapon fully automatic. If you want to purchase a legal automatic weapon you need tens of thousands of dollars, years of paperwork, and have to slog through a mountain of paperwork.
The point is that what someone needs isn't relevant to the law, that's not a metric you can use here. What is relevant is that people have a *right* to defend themselves with the best tool available to them, subject to certain reasonable limitations, namely "common use".
So, look at that for a moment. A gun is inherently designed to kill. If you are looking to defend yourself, you want a weapon that has the best ability to kill as you can get, full stop. That means magazine capacity, controllability, lethality, concealability etc. The same reason a police officer carries an AR-15 and a handgun with a 19 round mag is the same reason why a civilian has the right to the same weaponry. More to the point, there has been reams of data that shows there is no link to number of firearms in society, magazine size, or anything else that is shown to impact homicide rates. Yet, nonetheless, here we are trying to change laws and infringe upon law abiding citizens to change the rules which will be all indications not improve anything. What's the point here?
++ We in the US have high homicide rates for a variety of factors, but to suggest that the easy availability of guns is not one of them is absurd. If a gun wasn’t readily available, perhaps a friend of mine would have been beat up, but not put in a wheelchair. Europe has correspondingly lower homicide rates, also due to many factors, but it seems the relative lack of guns plays a role.
Basically, California is the embodiment of the "nanny state" gone wrong. You have some of the highest taxes in the nation with some of the most expansive government programs. Yet, the state has the highest poverty rate in the nation, some of the worst schools in the nation, among the worst infrastructure in the nation, and is the least affordable state in the nation. Yes, there are many beautiful parts of the state, no doubt, but that's not the question here. The question is the governance of California has made it a mess. The state used to have a vibrant industrial, manufacturing, and petrochemical business. State government ran them all out of the state in record fashion. The state has one mandate after another which makes it unlivable for any but the incredibly wealthy. Housing prices? You think that is because of prosperity? Allow me to point to Austin, TX. There is a reason why tech firms flee California to Austin specifically. Less onerous government regulation makes the place livable. The schools are better, the taxes far better, and because of less ridiculous building codes housing is a fraction of the price.
How many people actually move to California at this point? The census data is pretty clear. The people moving to California are immigrants who don't know better or are seeking "asylum", while the establish tax paying middle class is fleeing in droves. Just like Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
I would care less about that they had... and care more about what I had available, and my fellow officers... and a whole host of other things rather than worry whether they have one magazine or two or six.
It only takes one to kill me.
Firing 40 rounds means that “one” is more likely to find you than if he fires 20.
?
Oh yes... it is despair. Because its not like any your proposals haven't been tried.. and been found not to work. We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years... the science showed it had no effect. We had a high capacity magazine ban for 10 years.. no effect. We have background checks now.. no effect. Heck.. we have mass shooters that kill their mother.. and still their firearms.. and what does your side say we need "BACKGROUND CHECKS"....Funny, it seems your side is in despair. My side proposes a solution most people would support.
IF you a legally allowed to own a weapon? Sure. Why not? Think about this... Before you get through security... (In order to stop you from getting a gun on the plane)...you are crammed together with thousands of potential victims... because the Airport security doesn't want you to get on the plane with one hundred potential victims. Think how stupid that logic is. That somehow.. you are safer. Its called Security Theater... the illusion that somehow you are safer..Tell me, should I be able to bring my weapon into a plane?
Yep. Why not?Into a Congressional chamber where gun control is being debated?
Bingo.After all, I am equipping my good guy self to stop the bad guy with a gun.
Exactly... because those that planned on going into a bar and shooting it up.. aren't going to be deterred by a law.. not allowing you to bring your firearms in.Arizona took this to heart by allowing guns in bars. What could be safer?
Any police officer that thinks that they are appreciably safer because a person has 7 rounds versus 9... well..they shouldn't be a police officer.
We already had a ban on high capacity magazines... for 10 years.
You know what the scientists found out after studying the high capacity magazine ban? The ban had no statistically significant effect on reducing crime, injuries etc.
++ Still rather live here in our misery than in Texas. We obviously like it, since we keep electing the same folks. And our poverty rate is not the highest. We are with Texas and Florida, but below states to our southeast. We have nothing like south Texas or the southern Mississippi area. The northeast states you mention also don’t match the south, where 8 of the top 10 in poverty are. New Hampshire has the lowest rate in the chart that appeared in my search, Mississippi the highest. California 29th, between Missouri and Oregon. If you take in cost of living and other factors, California leads, but the poverty is concentrated in those parts of the state where the cost of living is the lowest. But one is probably still better off there in California’s Central Valley than in Miss. So we both need to beware of generalizations, esp about huge states like California and Texas.
++ Still rather live here in our misery than in Texas. We obviously like it, since we keep electing the same folks. And our poverty rate is not the highest. We are with Texas and Florida, but below states to our southeast. We have nothing like south Texas or the southern Mississippi area. The northeast states you mention also don’t match the south, where 8 of the top 10 in poverty are. New Hampshire has the lowest rate in the chart that appeared in my search, Mississippi the highest. California 29th, between Missouri and Oregon. If you take in cost of living and other factors, California leads, but the poverty is concentrated in those parts of the state where the cost of living is the lowest. But one is probably still better off there in California’s Central Valley than in Miss. So we both need to beware of generalizations, esp about huge states like California and Texas.
Funny, it seems your side is in despair. My side proposes a solution most people would support. Your side says no matter what you say, it won’t work, when countries that do have these controls seem to have fewer fatalities. The answer is for everyone to arm themselves, it seems. I feel safer already. A bit of talk about mental health services, but shrink from the thought of a background check that might show that the person buying a weapon is crazy.
Tell me, should I be able to bring my weapon into a plane? Into a Congressional chamber where gun control is being debated? After all, I am equipping my good guy self to stop the bad guy with a gun. Arizona took this to heart by allowing guns in bars. What could be safer?
show us the data. i would like to see how the numbers were determined for those shooting events that did not happen due to the prohibition of high capacity magazines
++ First, not all of them are crazy. Second, been there, done that: what you describe was done by Reagan when governor. He closed large institutions with the promise of halfway houses, but never fulfilled that promise. And of course, we need taxes to do that, something Reagan abhorred. Still thing something like that might be useful.
Not really.
Oh yes... it is despair. Because its not like any your proposals haven't been tried.. and been found not to work. We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years... the science showed it had no effect. We had a high capacity magazine ban for 10 years.. no effect. We have background checks now.. no effect. Heck.. we have mass shooters that kill their mother.. and still their firearms.. and what does your side say we need "BACKGROUND CHECKS"....
++ Ten yearsxprobably too short a time to test.
Cripes.. most of these mass shooters all passed background checks. or got around the check by stealing their firearms.
Almost all these mass shooters have histories of mental health issues... but you talk mental health with your side.. and what do you hear... "Crazy people buying weapons need to be stopped"..
Cripes.. how about getting people the treatment they need instead of thinking that a background check is going to stop them??? Holy crap.. who wouldn't be in despair given your sides attitude? your side doesn't care if a person suffering mental health problems commits suicide with something other than a gun. Cuz your only answer is "crazy people shouldn't have firearms"..
Which frankly as a medical professional really frustrates me. One of the large barriers to getting help for people with mental health problems is the stigma that's put on folks suffering mental health problems... that they are all "dangerous crazies"... well the facts are that the vast majority of people suffering mental health problems are more likely to be a VICTIM of violent crime..rather than be a perpetrator of violent crime.
And yet your side focuses on the "don't let the crazies have guns"... so the fellow I treat who is having some depression after his wife dies... is afraid to tell his physician about this because he is afraid there will be a sheriff at his door.. demanding to confiscate his grandpas old revolver.
The key isn't waiting until people become so bad they become a threat.. and then going "well they shouldn't buy a gun".. its getting the diagnosis and treatment before someone even begins to potentially become a danger to themselves and others.
So yes..your side makes us gun owners that actually CARE about people. and not just those that are harmed with a gun.. but all people.. your side makes us gun owners despair. and anyone else with any common sense.
IF you a legally allowed to own a weapon? Sure. Why not? Think about this... Before you get through security... (In order to stop you from getting a gun on the plane)...you are crammed together with thousands of potential victims... because the Airport security doesn't want you to get on the plane with one hundred potential victims. Think how stupid that logic is. That somehow.. you are safer. Its called Security Theater... the illusion that somehow you are safer.
++ Somehow I’d rather be in a crowd at the airport terminal when someone opens up than be in a plane at 30,000 feet. But you might want to ask your representatives to introduce legislation ending prohibition of arms on planes and elimination of metal detectors.
Yep. Why not?
Bingo.
Exactly... because those that planned on going into a bar and shooting it up.. aren't going to be deterred by a law.. not allowing you to bring your firearms in.
in
And frankly..mostly that law was because of restaurants, and other avenues where alcohol was served. So I could not say bring my concealed firearm into a restaurant where a person could buy a beer with their burger.
++ So why pass laws prohibiting guns in schools? Murders still happen, so why outlaw them?
By the way.. in most states its a serious charge to be carrying a firearm and being inebriated. I don't drink.. so whats the problem with me carrying a firearm into a restaurant.
By the way.. statistically carry concealed folks are more law abiding than the general public and in some studies more law abiding than the police.
State income tax of 8% on $42,000... And for that you get over regulation, high fuel prices, massive homelessness that the over expenditure doesn't cover. Not to mention the California upper education used to be practically free. Even the JCs are bumping prices. Lower education is failing in many areas. LA School district has a 40% reading and 30% math proficiency. Car registration fees are a joke. If you have to do ANYTHING at the DMV you wait for hours. If you make an appointment you wait for weeks to save those hours. And it has gotten worse with the double whammy of illegal alien drivers licenses and the need for the Real ID (because your licenses can no longer be trusted). Rumblings about killing Prop 13. More taxes on the way. "Road diets" (Closing existing needed lanes to create bike lanes thereby increasing gridlock in cities)
That is out state taxes "at work".
That and it is a filibuster proof one party entity from top to city level....
And yet we love it, keep electing the folks who brought us progress, taxes, services taxes provide, etc.
That's your choice, but I would again point out that a huge number of middle class Californians are voting with their feet. If you don't make $500k/yr in California, you can't raise a family in a reasonable way honestly, at least in large parts of the state. If you can't afford private schools, a $2MM house, then good luck out there.
Sorry, you have the highest welfare rate and the highest inequality rate, not poverty rate, you are correct there.
One of the big problems people often miss in comparing states is the growth rates and legacy burden. Most blue states have no growth except for a few pockets carrying the states. What does Cali look like without Silicon Valley? Not great. A huge part of your tax revenue is tied to those silicon valley capital gains. The debt levels in most of these blue states are simply enormous. The next downturn will likely break Rhode Island and Illinois. No one wants to live in most of these places. California has some positives, but again, the middle class making $80k-300k are pouring out.
Here's the problem, I am assuming you are talking about universal background checks with what "your side proposes". How many of these gun crimes do you think it would stop? The answer, also researched exhaustively, is almost zero. It turns out almost no guns that are being used for crimes are going through the very limited circumstances where a transfer occurs without a background check. More importantly, tons of people get denied access to guns by the checks already. It simply isn't a common occurrence that someone goes to a gunshow or a family friend to acquire a gun when they knowingly cannot. Instead they buy one on the blackmarket or steal one, which is common.
The SCOTUS has upheld reasonable regulations and limitations. This can be easily seen to restrict weapons in "sensitive areas" such as schools, airports etc. These are also places that tend to have existing armed security. Do you need a gun in a courthouse that has a dozen or so armed cops in it? Do you need a gun in an airport with a hundred armed cops? Probably not and that's why the court is ok with it. Now, do you need a gun in a park? Maybe, there is a valid argument there. Do you need a gun in a bar? Well it depends, most states say no if you are consuming alcohol, again a reasonable action. Can you ban handguns or other commonly held weapons? The court has said no. Can you ban large mags? Probably not at this point. Heller really screwed the anti-gun crowd when it comes to an AWB/mag cap ban when they talked about "firearms in common use".
You can do a simple internet search for "FBI/ATF research on the effects of the AWB ban". It's a rather exhaustive and detailed report that was widely reviewed and analyzed. It is also regularly cited for its conclusion that the AWB ban (which included a high-cap mag ban) had no measurable impact on gun crime at any level.
That's your choice, but I would again point out that a huge number of middle class Californians are voting with their feet. If you don't make $500k/yr in California, you can't raise a family in a reasonable way honestly, at least in large parts of the state. If you can't afford private schools, a $2MM house, then good luck out there.
++ Didn’t know all of my friends were that wealthy. Don’t know how we did it on less than a fifth of what you think is necessary.
Sorry, you have the highest welfare rate and the highest inequality rate, not poverty rate, you are correct there.
++ Big state, lots of labor intensive agriculture, thus lots of poor farmworkers; lots of wealthy, thus lots of house cleaners, nannies, gardeners.
One of the big problems people often miss in comparing states is the growth rates and legacy burden. Most blue states have no growth except for a few pockets carrying the states. What does Cali look like without Silicon Valley? Not great. A huge part of your tax revenue is tied to those silicon valley capital gains. The debt levels in most of these blue states are simply enormous. The next downturn will likely break Rhode Island and Illinois. No one wants to live in most of these places. California has some positives, but again, the middle class making $80k-300k are pouring out.
++ My wife and I made towards the lower end of that as do friends and neighbors in our relatively high-priced neighborhoods and did ok. Some moving out, others in, much like everywhere. The housing market is driving much of the problem, true, as we probably would have trouble buying our house now, but Silicon Valley is just *this* couple of generations’ boom. I heard about the unaffordability of housing here back when the only computer was Univac and filled a room. It’s all happened before since logging, furs, gold, etc. The neighborhoods have been ruined by successive waves of newcomers, each grumbling about the new arrivals that follow them. When I first came here in the early 60’s I learned the phrase “he doesn’t have a Chinaman’s chance,” a phrase still in use, of people admitting to the poverty of and bigotry against Chinese. Now that phrase is invalid, long since gone, replaced by people grumbling about the latest wave of Chinese overachievers in our universities, buying property, etc., reminiscent of the bigotry against Jews I saw in New York back in the day.
This too shall pass... The more things change... Probably a dozen more corny old phrases apply.
Here's the problem, I am assuming you are talking about universal background checks with what "your side proposes". How many of these gun crimes do you think it would stop? The answer, also researched exhaustively, is almost zero. It turns out almost no guns that are being used for crimes are going through the very limited circumstances where a transfer occurs without a background check. More importantly, tons of people get denied access to guns by the checks already. It simply isn't a common occurrence that someone goes to a gunshow or a family friend to acquire a gun when they knowingly cannot. Instead they buy one on the blackmarket or steal one, which is common.
The SCOTUS has upheld reasonable regulations and limitations. This can be easily seen to restrict weapons in "sensitive areas" such as schools, airports etc. These are also places that tend to have existing armed security. Do you need a gun in a courthouse that has a dozen or so armed cops in it? Do you need a gun in an airport with a hundred armed cops? Probably not and that's why the court is ok with it. Now, do you need a gun in a park? Maybe, there is a valid argument there. Do you need a gun in a bar? Well it depends, most states say no if you are consuming alcohol, again a reasonable action. Can you ban handguns or other commonly held weapons? The court has said no. Can you ban large mags? Probably not at this point. Heller really screwed the anti-gun crowd when it comes to an AWB/mag cap ban when they talked about "firearms in common use".
You can do a simple internet search for "FBI/ATF research on the effects of the AWB ban". It's a rather exhaustive and detailed report that was widely reviewed and analyzed. It is also regularly cited for its conclusion that the AWB ban (which included a high-cap mag ban) had no measurable impact on gun crime at any level.
then show us the cite
++ Such things seem to exist and kill rates are lower in societies that resemble ours. You are a good man, keep your gun. I want to try to make it harder for bad men to get guns. I don’t buy the Hobbesian view that we all are in a fight with one another.
++ But anyway the fight from my side is lost. French eat snails; Americans eat guns. I don’t get either practice. Btw, countering that is history: the most famous gunfight in our history, the OK Corral, was about gun control. People of Tombstone were smarter than the NRA.
A tank is not a weapon? Ask the Ukrainians.
A tank is not a weapon.
It's a vehicle.
Google is your friend, don't be so lazy as to hide behind it. Jesus.
Again, the murder rate in the US over the past 10, 20, 30, and 40 years has declined faster than other developed nations, including those that effectively ban guns. Again, re-read that. Our murder rate has declined, faster than our anti-gun peers, despite the number of guns in the nation exploding. Negative correlation.
How many gun crimes are committed because of a gun that was purchased from a gun-show loophole? Is it even measurable? Yet somehow you want us to go along with things like nation registries? Yea, hard pass.
The issue in Tombstone was that there were so many criminals with guns they couldn't be controlled. Chicago has this very same problem despite rampant gun control, explain.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?