The second amendment

[Jason]

What's required in California? I don't really know much about this.

Your county's local sheriff's department issues them. You must pass their background check, take a class (every so many years) and qualify several times a year. Each county is different in how strict they are. I know San Bernardino Co issues them pretty regularly and Riverside makes it pretty difficult. It just depends on who the current sheriff is.

[Angelsjunky]

Juan, you're full of hot air. Please back up your assertion that gun laws have no correlation with homicide rates. You spout this sort of thing like its fact, but its not. To be honest, I'm not sure that we know. But it is, ahem, common sense that if guns are harder to come by there will be at least some reduction in gun violence. I mean, isn't it worth a shot? What's wrong with it being much harder to own a firearm? Who does it hurt? Not responsible (and sane) gun owners.

 

But yeah, I agree that there is ideology and culture involved.

 

[arch stanton]

I'm going out on a limb and saying that nobody in that photo has ever committed mass murder.

[juansavage1]

Juan, you're full of hot air. Please back up your assertion that gun laws have no correlation with homicide rates. You spout this sort of thing like its fact, but its not. To be honest, I'm not sure that we know. But it is, ahem, common sense that if guns are harder to come by there will be at least some reduction in gun violence. I mean, isn't it worth a shot? What's wrong with it being much harder to own a firearm? Who does it hurt? Not responsible (and sane) gun owners.

 

But yeah, I agree that there is ideology and culture involved.

 

Here's an article conveniently called, "

Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/

 

The correlation between the homicide rate and Brady score in all 51 jurisdictions is +.032 (on a scale of -1 to +1), which means that states with more gun restrictions on average have very slightly higher homicide rates, though the tendency is so small as to be essentially zero. (If you omit the fatal gun accident rates, then the correlation would be +.065, which would make the more gun-restricting states look slightly worse; but again, the correlation would be small enough to be essentially zero, given all the other possible sources of variation.) If we use the National Journal data (adding the columns for each state, counting 1 for each dark blue, which refers to broad restrictions, 0.5 for each light blue, which refers to medium restrictions, and 0 for each grey, which refers to no or light restrictions), the results are similar: +0.017 or +0.051 if one omits the fatal gun accident rates. You can also run the correlation yourself on my Excel spreadsheet.

[Jason]

#ducklivesmatter

[LBHalos17]

Juan, you're full of hot air. Please back up your assertion that gun laws have no correlation with homicide rates. You spout this sort of thing like its fact, but its not. To be honest, I'm not sure that we know. But it is, ahem, common sense that if guns are harder to come by there will be at least some reduction in gun violence. I mean, isn't it worth a shot? What's wrong with it being much harder to own a firearm? Who does it hurt? Not responsible (and sane) gun owners.

 

But yeah, I agree that there is ideology and culture involved.

 

These guys would pass background easily anyway.  'Merica!

[DEVLBAT]

I just want to keep the King of England out of my face.

[Tank]

#ducklivesmatter

 

duck hunters of peace.

[Tank]

Your county's local sheriff's department issues them. You must pass their background check, take a class (every so many years) and qualify several times a year. Each county is different in how strict they are. I know San Bernardino Co issues them pretty regularly and Riverside makes it pretty difficult. It just depends on who the current sheriff is.

 

so it's not standardized throughout the state? that seems silly and opens the door to problems. one set of standards throughout the state (and maybe the country) seems like a better way to go. no confusion amongst people, courts or law enforcement agencies that way.

[LBHalos17]

Here are your links, Tank...

 

http://try.usconcealedcarry.net/your-state-ccg-bing/?id=bing&sid=s_state_discovery_ys&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Search%3A%20State%3A%20CALIFORNIA%20-Discovery&utm_term=%2BCalifornia%20%2BCCW%20%2Bpermit

 

 

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs

[Tank]

Thanks, LB.

[Crampknees]

This wasn't me but if I ever get to that point.....

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/10/13/texas-responsible-gun-owner-shoots-first-asks-questions-later-now-he-gets-to-bury-his-wife/

[the dude abides]

This wasn't me but if I ever get to that point.....

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/10/13/texas-responsible-gun-owner-shoots-first-asks-questions-later-now-he-gets-to-bury-his-wife/

 

That patriot was standin' his ground. 

 

He'll walk.

[juansavage1]

there's very little gun crime in irvine.we should do what they do.

so it's not standardized throughout the state? that seems silly and opens the door to problems. one set of standards throughout the state (and maybe the country) seems like a better way to go. no confusion amongst people, courts or law enforcement agencies that way.

[AngelsLongBall]

Here is an article from a few years ago about a CCW holder dropping a gun at a restaurant and shooting an elderly woman.

 

I'm pretty anti-gun (but oddly I'm not completely anti-CCW).  One of my concerns with the "more guns" argument is that more shit like this will occur.

 

Curious to get the opinions of others:

 

1) Should this guy still be allowed to carry a concealed weapon now?

2) Should he be in jail?

 

 

http://www.khou.com/story/news/2014/07/16/11482696/

IMO, he should lose the privilege (CCW is not a right), and he should face charges of negligence at the very least.  Guns don't just drop and go BOOM.  He had to have a round chambered, and the safety off. 

[AngelsLongBall]

Interesting take:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/top-california-official-propose-gun-control-initiative-070214538.html

 

5 changes to state law

— Eliminate the stockpile of now-banned large-capacity magazines with 11 rounds or more: Owners would be required to sell them to a licensed firearms dealer, take them out of state or turn them in to law enforcement to be destroyed. State law already bans manufacturing or selling magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

— Background checks for ammunition purchases: Ammunition dealers would need to conduct a background check at the point-of-sale for all ammunition, and dealers would need a license similar to those required to sell firearms. Stores also would be required to report to law enforcement if ammunition has been lost or stolen.

— Reporting lost and stolen guns: California would join 11 other states in requiring that lost or stolen firearms be reported to law enforcement.

— Felons must relinquish weapons: California courts would set up a clear process to relinquish weapons. The authors say that more than 17,000 Californians who are prohibited from owning firearms currently have guns.

— Firearms database: The California Department of Justice would have to notify the federal instant criminal background check system when someone is added to the database of those prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. California currently reports to the federal system voluntarily.

 

The last 3 are no brainers, and I'm shocked that there is no law for #3&4. 

 

The first two are murkier.  If you legally purchased high capacity magazines, I think it sets a bad precedent that you can retroactively go back and confiscate something.  As for ammo, I think a background check is a bad idea and among other things will swamp whatever skimpy system is in place.  I believe a license should be required to buy ammo, same as I believe a license is required to buy a gun.

[Blarg]

Yes, I know, guns don't kill people, people (with guns) kill people. By why is it that American people with guns kill far more people than any other wealthy nation? What's wrong with this country?

It is pretty obvious, we are wealthier and can afford more bullets.

[Adam]

Doesn't everyone die from smoking in those other countries?

[Jason]

so it's not standardized throughout the state? that seems silly and opens the door to problems. one set of standards throughout the state (and maybe the country) seems like a better way to go. no confusion amongst people, courts or law enforcement agencies that way.

There are standards but they aren't handed out by the state.

[nate]

Who cares.  Nobody can kill me with a cigarette from 200 yards away.

[Jason]

Who cares.  Nobody can kill me with a cigarette from 200 yards away.

Nor a handgun

[Blarg]

On the real world topic of guns I will present personal experience that dates back at least 100+ years of time. I am only 56 but my family dates back to both my father and mothers side immigrating at the turn of the century. Both families had found their way to the Northwest, Montana in particular but scattered reaches of Minnesota, Idaho, Oregon and Washington is included. 

 

On both my father's and mother's side hunting was a valued resource for supplementing their diet, one bullet cost about 3 cents while one deer could provide a couple hundred pounds of meat protein. A shots shell for less than a penny could provide a turkey or pheasant, even a duck that could feed the family. So hunting was not only viable source of food but cost effective in rural areas.

 

Great Granparents, Grand Parents, Parents, Uncles, Aunts all generations from those first immigrants grew up with guns in the household, used them for hunting, some collecting more than others but generation after generation each were handing down the practice of hunter safety and just going out and shooting some tin cans. It wasn't just the guys, my Mom is the deadliest shot in the family and she doesn't even practice.

 

The only incidents when any one of my relatives were involved with taking another human's life was my Grandfather and a couple uncles were involved in WWII and were scout snipers in the Army, and one incident way back at the turn of the century where a Great Grand Uncle was involved in a Gold Rush claim jump shootout in Alaska. 

 

Outside of that no one in the family has been involved in a gun related death, incident or crime. No one has ever accidentally shot themselves or others handling, loading or cleaning a firearm. No kids ever got into the gun cabinet and blew away the family dog or best friend. Not even a suicide, which is the most prevalent gun related death in the US. We are talking over 1,000 people when you start adding everyone up. Yeah, some were Catholics and had big families.

 

So when I stand against the idea of rounding up all the guns because they are "dangerous" I have a family history of always being within the law using safe practices and believe it starts at home instead of the Congressional floor. I think that would be classified as a Libertarian view of self governing ones actions instead of having the state take things away from you that were never a threat to others. 

 

Some people shouldn't own guns. My family certainly has shown the responsibility to keep theirs. And that is where we would part in the issue of gun control discussions. 

[arch stanton]

Doesn't everyone die from smoking in those other countries?

Either that or boredom.

[Mark68]

On the real world topic of guns I will present personal experience that dates back at least 100+ years of time. I am only 56 but my family dates back to both my father and mothers side immigrating at the turn of the century. Both families had found their way to the Northwest, Montana in particular but scattered reaches of Minnesota, Idaho, Oregon and Washington is included. 

 

On both my father's and mother's side hunting was a valued resource for supplementing their diet, one bullet cost about 3 cents while one deer could provide a couple hundred pounds of meat protein. A shots shell for less than a penny could provide a turkey or pheasant, even a duck that could feed the family. So hunting was not only viable source of food but cost effective in rural areas.

 

Great Granparents, Grand Parents, Parents, Uncles, Aunts all generations from those first immigrants grew up with guns in the household, used them for hunting, some collecting more than others but generation after generation each were handing down the practice of hunter safety and just going out and shooting some tin cans. It wasn't just the guys, my Mom is the deadliest shot in the family and she doesn't even practice.

 

The only incidents when any one of my relatives were involved with taking another human's life was my Grandfather and a couple uncles were involved in WWII and were scout snipers in the Army, and one incident way back at the turn of the century where a Great Grand Uncle was involved in a Gold Rush claim jump shootout in Alaska. 

 

Outside of that no one in the family has been involved in a gun related death, incident or crime. No one has ever accidentally shot themselves or others handling, loading or cleaning a firearm. No kids ever got into the gun cabinet and blew away the family dog or best friend. Not even a suicide, which is the most prevalent gun related death in the US. We are talking over 1,000 people when you start adding everyone up. Yeah, some were Catholics and had big families.

 

So when I stand against the idea of rounding up all the guns because they are "dangerous" I have a family history of always being within the law using safe practices and believe it starts at home instead of the Congressional floor. I think that would be classified as a Libertarian view of self governing ones actions instead of having the state take things away from you that were never a threat to others. 

 

Some people shouldn't own guns. My family certainly has shown the responsibility to keep theirs. And that is where we would part in the issue of gun control discussions. 

So, notti, what is your point of view on gun registration and background checks (including gun shows and elsewhere where it is currently sporadic)? Is it violating your rights to have to wait to purchase a firearm until such a check is complete?

 

It seems to me that any legislation that includes at least these measures is considered by the gun lobby as "taking away their rights", and I would really like to understand how this could be the case.

[Blarg]

All for gun registration, background checks, wait periods (within reason) mandatory gun safety courses that require range qualifications for the type of firearm purchased, pistol, rifle/shotgun, semi auto, etc. That would be like updating your pilots licenses from single prop to twin then jet.

This really won't have any affect on crime statistics but should lessen accidents.