- 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.
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.