• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Gun Control - Worked - Article Fails

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
How California's Gun Laws Have Worked - Business Insider

Here is a piece of so called journalism. It cites references from two distinct
anti gun laws.

Now it should be noted there is some accuracy in the story. Gun violence in CA
has declined by nearly 50% over the period of time noted. But the article attributes
that to gun laws or controls in the state. People don't know the whole story and a
key factor has been ignored.

Let me rebutt:

1) The article referenced the addition of those people "subjected" to a domestic
violence were banned from owning firearms.

This is true and to a point I agree with this law. I don't like that it doesn't require a
conviction and that the provisions for getting one's weapons back after falsely being
accused are impossible in some areas (see Santa Cruz storage fees). Sadly there is
no statistical data which proves the articles point and that this law worked. I'd like
to see this modified. It needs a simple provision for the falsely accused or aquitted
to get their guns back easily.

2) 1999 Law prohibits me and others from buying more than 1 hand gun every 30
days, and again no evidence provided this mattered.

This law also only applies to new guns. I can buy a dozen in a month so long as 11 of
them are not new. FAIL

3) Ban on various assault weapons and the one rule test by manufacturers.

Not only can I categorically call this a failure and a law that had done nothing to curb
violence I can illustrate that its failure has caused a dramatic increase in the sale of
legal assault weapons. Thankfully - this law was to curb the distribution of banned
firearms - yet that distribution has never been higher and yet the authors give it
credit for less violence? Get the problem?

4) 10 round mag limit

Two points. One is that we ignore the 10 round mag limit because we can buy the
parts of a hi cap magazine and assemble them ourselves. This has been done to
extra ordinary levels in CA so the law is meaningless, and again no stats are even
provided to suggest high cap magazines of various guns matter in crime - assault
rifles with high cap magazines are still less than 3% of the gun violence here too.

5) 50 Cal Ban

OMG, they banned the 50 cal, and so how much violence did that stop? Are you
serious at nearly $5 per round who uses a .50cal in crime? This is laughable
and besides its the reason I bought a 338 Lapua and 300 WM - so much less
power huh.

Sorry for the long windedness, but here is the real kicker. Since these anti gun
laws were adopted gun ownership in CA has soared. We, as a state, buy nearly
3 million firearms a year in CA and many of them "assault rifles" by the anti's
view.

NOW I dare say, the point missed in the article above, is that increased gun ownership
in CA is as much a cause of the decrease in gun violence as anything else.
 
Not to mention, a decrease in gun violence does not necessarily mean a decrease in general violence.


And violent crime has been largely on the decline for decades in the US in general... despite the proliferation of easy-CCW states.
 
It also does not factor in the booming economy enjoyed in CA prior to 2008. This was largely brought on by the techno boom
first the Internet and later communications. The wealth that followed them "trickled down" oh my; also the states 3 strikes law
was ignored so those more likely to commit violence crime were locked away (and are). So much failure in this article but the
one that struck me was they ignored gun ownership - which soared in the periods represented.


Not to mention, a decrease in gun violence does not necessarily mean a decrease in general violence.


And violent crime has been largely on the decline for decades in the US in general... despite the proliferation of easy-CCW states.
 
Yep. If you pass law banning chicken fighting to reduce gun crime, as gun crime in the state is dropping, you can then assert that banning chicken fighting has indeed reduced gun crime. ;)
 
Not to mention, a decrease in gun violence does not necessarily mean a decrease in general violence.


And violent crime has been largely on the decline for decades in the US in general... despite the proliferation of easy-CCW states.

The main reason crime is down including crimes where guns are used is because of three strike laws. Most of the criminals are in prison today.

But here in Mexifornia crime is rising because liberal judges have ordered the state to start emptying the prisons because of over crowding. Gov. Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown couldn't be happier than a clam.

In the past five years the state of California has seen gun purchases sky rocket, the highest in history. The credit goes directly to Barack Obama, the best gun salesman of all times just not on the "Left Coast" but all of America. He has won that honor since 2008 and has won that honor every year. And already he's a shoe-for in this year.
 
This is true. Gun sales in CA have hit 8-9 million units since the loser took office.
 
Back
Top Bottom