CA having the strongest gun control laws in the country failed doesn't make your point. That's like saying healthy eating doesn't stop heart attacks, because your obese uncle still had a heart attack even though he ate a piece of broccoli once.shimmy wrote:California has the strictest gun laws in the country, to include:gary kreie wrote:Someone on the radio pointed out that, while traditional crimes are often committed with illegal stolen guns, those criminals are hoping to avoid using their guns on strangers. Whereas these mass murderers, whose objective is to just kill as many people as they can, usually buy their guns legally. These lone wolfs don't have the gang connections that tie them into the illegal gun market. He was making the point that gun laws that make it more difficult to get assault weapons legally probably would reduce the number of random mass murders.
- 10 Day waiting period after a purchase
- 10 round magazine limit
- "Assault weapons" ban
- Background checks to include private sales (all purchases through a federally licensed dealer require a background check nationwide, contrary to popular talking points)
- Bullet button requirement for magazine release
- "May issue" carry permits instead of "shall issue"
- 30 day waiting period between purchases
- Pretty much every other law that the gun control lobby is advocating for on a national level
And all of the guns used in the most recent shooting were purchased in California.
- 1,868
- 1,610
shimmy wrote:California has the strictest gun laws in the country, to include:gary kreie wrote:Someone on the radio pointed out that, while traditional crimes are often committed with illegal stolen guns, those criminals are hoping to avoid using their guns on strangers. Whereas these mass murderers, whose objective is to just kill as many people as they can, usually buy their guns legally. These lone wolfs don't have the gang connections that tie them into the illegal gun market. He was making the point that gun laws that make it more difficult to get assault weapons legally probably would reduce the number of random mass murders.
- 10 Day waiting period after a purchase
- 10 round magazine limit
- "Assault weapons" ban
- Background checks to include private sales (all purchases through a federally licensed dealer require a background check nationwide, contrary to popular talking points)
- Bullet button requirement for magazine release
- "May issue" carry permits instead of "shall issue"
- 30 day waiting period between purchases
- Pretty much every other law that the gun control lobby is advocating for on a national level
And all of the guns used in the most recent shooting were purchased in California.
So guns are still dangerous, even after all of that? Hmm.....
So we're in agreement that these gun laws are pointless. Good.
- 1,610
^ If that's what you chose to take from that, then that is what you chose to take from that.
Aye, guns can be dangerous. Gun laws are stupid.
I agree with both! Also would love to see how an attempt at confiscation works out. Quit beating around the bush and try it already.
I agree with both! Also would love to see how an attempt at confiscation works out. Quit beating around the bush and try it already.
- 3,235
It's nearly impossible for mass shooters to fulfill their plan without an assault rifle or semi automatic. Mass shootings weren't a thing until auto and semi auto guns they were made legal.
Ban them.
Ban them.
California did.downtown2007 wrote:It's nearly impossible for mass shooters to fulfill their plan without an assault rifle or semi automatic. Mass shootings weren't a thing until auto and semi auto guns they were made legal.
Ban them.
- 3,235
Doesn't mean you can't buy one in a nearby state. Gun control has to come from the federal level.
- 1,610
Where'd they come from?shimmy wrote:They bought them in California.
Guns ARE dangerous. They were created to be dangerous, and they serve no other purpose other than being dangerous.Aesir wrote:Aye, guns can be dangerous.
They are killing machines.
This doesn't make sense.shimmy wrote:They bought them in California.
Either the guns he bought legally in California are not illegal in California, or he did not buy them legally in California.
They got them from the gun store, which I assume got them from the manufacturer.
Ok, some education is needed. The terms "semi-automatic" and "assault weapon" are not interchangeable. Most assault weapons are semi-automatic, but most semi-automatics are not assault weapons. One refers to a weapon's mechanical functioning while the other is really a made up term that deals more with cosmetics.
A semi-automatic weapon is a weapon that performs self-loading as long as there is a loaded magazine fed into it but fires only one shot per trigger pull. This is as opposed to an automatic weapon that continuously fires bullets as long as the trigger is squeezed until it is empty.
"Assault weapon" is a made up term that deals more with guns that "look scary". For example, most assault weapon bans make a collapsing buttstock illegal. Keep in mind that the buttstock, whether it collapses or not, has absolutely no influence whatsoever on how the weapon fires, it just looks scary so it must be banned.
As a result, most manufacturers manufacture what they call "California compliant" rifles which remove all of the scary looking cosmetics and include such things as a 10 round magazine and a bullet button, which is a small, shielded button that has to be pushed in (using something like the tip of a bullet - hence the name) in order for the magazine to be released, among other things.
And so, if you propose a semi-automatic ban, then you'll actually be proposing something that bans the weapons that you think you are banning with an "assault weapons ban" - along with pretty much every handgun and shotgun except for revolvers and pump-action shotguns.
That's a fair position to have. I don't agree with it at all and it has absolutely no shot whatsoever of happening, but it would at least be an honest proposal because then you would be upfront with the fact that you do indeed want to take people's guns and don't want to just pass "common sense gun laws" that, as California demonstrates, aren't common sense at all and have zero effect. Of course, if it by some miracle were to get passed then it would require confiscation. I'm sure that would go over well.
Ok, some education is needed. The terms "semi-automatic" and "assault weapon" are not interchangeable. Most assault weapons are semi-automatic, but most semi-automatics are not assault weapons. One refers to a weapon's mechanical functioning while the other is really a made up term that deals more with cosmetics.
A semi-automatic weapon is a weapon that performs self-loading as long as there is a loaded magazine fed into it but fires only one shot per trigger pull. This is as opposed to an automatic weapon that continuously fires bullets as long as the trigger is squeezed until it is empty.
"Assault weapon" is a made up term that deals more with guns that "look scary". For example, most assault weapon bans make a collapsing buttstock illegal. Keep in mind that the buttstock, whether it collapses or not, has absolutely no influence whatsoever on how the weapon fires, it just looks scary so it must be banned.
As a result, most manufacturers manufacture what they call "California compliant" rifles which remove all of the scary looking cosmetics and include such things as a 10 round magazine and a bullet button, which is a small, shielded button that has to be pushed in (using something like the tip of a bullet - hence the name) in order for the magazine to be released, among other things.
And so, if you propose a semi-automatic ban, then you'll actually be proposing something that bans the weapons that you think you are banning with an "assault weapons ban" - along with pretty much every handgun and shotgun except for revolvers and pump-action shotguns.
That's a fair position to have. I don't agree with it at all and it has absolutely no shot whatsoever of happening, but it would at least be an honest proposal because then you would be upfront with the fact that you do indeed want to take people's guns and don't want to just pass "common sense gun laws" that, as California demonstrates, aren't common sense at all and have zero effect. Of course, if it by some miracle were to get passed then it would require confiscation. I'm sure that would go over well.
- 3,235
I would prefer reintroducing the Federal Assualt Weapons Ban that expired in 2004. Which covered various semi auto weapons
That would only make California's gun laws federal. It's practically the exact same thing.downtown2007 wrote:I would prefer reintroducing the Federal Assualt Weapons Ban that expired in 2004. Which covered various semi auto weapons
- 623
The FBI search of the apartment turned up invoices from internet gun shops in TX and KY. Although they have not verified those were the guns used.They bought them in California.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... rit=649324
The KY based site budsgunshop.com had a section of its site specifically dedicated to helping California residents navigate the CA gun laws.
So there's that.“Due to the amount of restrictions the State of California has placed for the ownership of firearms,” the site reads, “we have dedicated an entire category of our website to help get you the firearms you need!”
Yes, because most guns advertised on online gun shops are illegal in California, and so it makes sense that they have a section of their site dedicated to guns that are legal in the most populous state in the country.
And even if you buy a gun online, it's shipped to a federal dealer by you. It's not like they UPS it to your front door. I've bought a gun from budsgunshop.com, and the way it works is that I order the gun I want and then I select which dealer I want it shipped to. They ship it to that dealer and I go there to pick it up. The dealer then runs both a federal and state background check, charge a small fee for the background check and for being the middle man, and then hand the gun over to me once I pass the background check.
And even if you buy a gun online, it's shipped to a federal dealer by you. It's not like they UPS it to your front door. I've bought a gun from budsgunshop.com, and the way it works is that I order the gun I want and then I select which dealer I want it shipped to. They ship it to that dealer and I go there to pick it up. The dealer then runs both a federal and state background check, charge a small fee for the background check and for being the middle man, and then hand the gun over to me once I pass the background check.
- 8,155
This weeks' area crime report:
Man in Monkey Mask Robs Bank
Man Steals Entire Log Cabin
Bud Weisser Arrested for Budweiser Trespass
Man in Monkey Mask Robs Bank
Man Steals Entire Log Cabin
Bud Weisser Arrested for Budweiser Trespass
- 3,235
- 8,155
roger wyoming II wrote:This weeks' area crime report:
Man in Monkey Mask Robs Bank
Man Steals Entire Log Cabin
Bud Weisser Arrested for Budweiser Trespass
I guess I need an update:
Man in Monkey Mask Robs Bank
Man Steals Entire Log Cabin
Bud Weisser Arrested for Budweiser Trespass
Chess Grandmaster Wanted for Paying 5 Year-Old Son To Drink Sake Shots
I'll place weight on the NYT's opinion that I should give up my rights when they make the choice to first submit all their articles to government review before publishing.downtown2007 wrote:End the Gun Epidemic in America
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/op ... erer=&_r=1
Till then, the answer is the same. Come and take them.
- 1,868
The point is that CA gun laws get held up like, "oh CA has great gun laws and stuff still happens so obviously federal gun laws wouldn't work", when obviously it makes a difference whether people have to circumvent laws by shopping in Nevada vs Mexico.shimmy wrote:Yes, because most guns advertised on online gun shops are illegal in California, and so it makes sense that they have a section of their site dedicated to guns that are legal in the most populous state in the country.
And even if you buy a gun online, it's shipped to a federal dealer by you. It's not like they UPS it to your front door. I've bought a gun from budsgunshop.com, and the way it works is that I order the gun I want and then I select which dealer I want it shipped to. They ship it to that dealer and I go there to pick it up. The dealer then runs both a federal and state background check, charge a small fee for the background check and for being the middle man, and then hand the gun over to me once I pass the background check.
There's no right to unregulated gun ownership, hope this clears up some confusion for you.Aesir wrote:I'll place weight on the NYT's opinion that I should give up my rights when they make the choice to first submit all their articles to government review before publishing.downtown2007 wrote:End the Gun Epidemic in America
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/op ... erer=&_r=1
Till then, the answer is the same. Come and take them.
I don't understand your point. The only laws that they circumvented were the magazines that they used, not the guns themselves. Likewise, the Santa Barbara killer from a few years ago didn't circumvent any laws at all. They didn't buy their guns in Nevada. They bought them in California. The California gun laws, which are pretty much exactly what the left is pushing for on a federal level, didn't work. This isn't the case of some gun pipeline from another state where the laws are less strict. They bought these guns from a gun store in California, who got them from a gun manufacturer that made the guns in compliance with California law.MarkHaversham wrote: The point is that CA gun laws get held up like, "oh CA has great gun laws and stuff still happens so obviously federal gun laws wouldn't work", when obviously it makes a difference whether people have to circumvent laws by shopping in Nevada vs Mexico.
- 1,868
So what you're saying is that even the strongest gun laws in the country still allow people to purchase guns solely for the purpose of mass murdering other people.