• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Federal Judge Overturns California’s 3-Decade-Old Assault Weapons Ban

McBell

McBell

Unbound
Shadow Wolf said:
See, that's ****. I am talking about Western countries but you keep trying to make it about everybody else. Even you own source said this:
For a highly developed and wealthy nation, the United States has an unusually high rate of mass shootings.
Click to expand...
What makes "Western" countries so special?
I mean, not only do you have the conditional modifier "developed", but you also include the conditional modifier of "Western".
So now I am curious why "Western" is so special a conditional modifier that you are now actively complaining that it was ignored.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Altfish said:
Do the figures exist to prove that there were no less deaths when the weapon ban was in place?
Click to expand...
The figures is what I am a waiting on.
IMO, it matters not what the numbers are in the rest of the world.
What are the numbers for California.
Did the ban actually lower them?

I mean, it is painfully obvious the ban did not stop them.
 
Altfish

Altfish

Veteran Member
Mestemia said:
The figures is what I am a waiting on.
IMO, it matters not what the numbers are in the rest of the world.
What are the numbers for California.
Did the ban actually lower them?

I mean, it is painfully obvious the ban did not stop them.
Click to expand...
I agree, it depends on the Californian figures. But if Californian figures have increased less than (say) Texas, the ban may still be effective.
Why is it painfully obvious that they did not 'stop' them (although that is a very high bar)?
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Altfish said:
I agree, it depends on the Californian figures. But if Californian figures have increased less than (say) Texas, the ban may still be effective.
Why is it painfully obvious that they did not 'stop' them (although that is a very high bar)?
Click to expand...
How many news stories have there been the last 30 years where a "banned" firearm was used?
And that is just the ones that made the news.
How many more are never reported by the media?
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Mestemia said:
The figures is what I am a waiting on.
IMO, it matters not what the numbers are in the rest of the world.
What are the numbers for California.
Did the ban actually lower them?

I mean, it is painfully obvious the ban did not stop them.
Click to expand...
It's why I think it really dosent matter if a ban is in place or not.

If a person wants to kill someone, a feel-good ban won't stop them.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Altfish said:
Facts please, not speculation
Click to expand...
Still waiting for the figures.
Thus the reason for my statement "The figures is what I am a waiting on"...

Here are some "facts" that show the ban failed to completely stop firearm deaths in California:
And those are merely mass shootings that were "big" enough to garner a wiki page.
There are tons of stories about other times the media covered stories about "banned" firearms being used.
Interestingly enough, most of those stories include a little diddy about how the firearm(s) used were on the "ban" list....

But you are right in that I am not about to go through the last 32 years of California news coverage and link all the relevant stories for you.
 
Altfish

Altfish

Veteran Member
The
Mestemia said:
Still waiting for the figures.
Thus the reason for my statement "The figures is what I am a waiting on"...

Here are some "facts" that show the ban failed to completely stop firearm deaths in California:
And those are merely mass shootings that were "big" enough to garner a wiki page.
There are tons of stories about other times the media covered stories about "banned" firearms being used.
Interestingly enough, most of those stories include a little diddy about how the firearm(s) used were on the "ban" list....

But you are right in that I am not about to go through the last 32 years of California news coverage and link all the relevant stories for you.
Click to expand...
That proves nothing.
If (say) Texas had twice as many shootings, the trial would have been a success. It needs to be a comparrison of pre-ban and also with other states
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Altfish said:
The

That proves nothing.
If (say) Texas had twice as many shootings, the trial would have been a success. It needs to be a comparrison of pre-ban and also with other states
Click to expand...
I never claimed it "proves" anything.
That is your strawman to beat up as you see fit.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Altfish said:
No, just stating what constitutes 'failure'
Click to expand...
And yet the articles I linked do in fact prove that the ban failed to stop firearm related crimes with the "banned" weapons....
Which is what I actually said.
Mestemia said:
The figures is what I am a waiting on.
IMO, it matters not what the numbers are in the rest of the world.
What are the numbers for California.
Did the ban actually lower them?

I mean, it is painfully obvious the ban did not stop them.
Click to expand...
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Mestemia said:
And yet the articles I linked do in fact prove that the ban failed to stop firearm related crimes with the "banned" weapons....
Which is what I actually said.
​
Click to expand...
It has been decades since I last hunted. And I have to admit that I am behind the times. I have continually heard how popular the AR-15 style rifle is for gun owners, so I had to see if it was used for hunting. I was shocked that about 60% of hunters have used this gun. That is a huge number for just one make. I do understand that if one added all of the percentages up that the number will exceed100%. That is because most hunters have more than one gun. But for 60% to have used one style is amazing. I do have to agree that going after a gun because it looks bad is pointless.

Performance Grade AR Style Modern Hunting Rifles - Brenton USA
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Subduction Zone said:
It has been decades since I last hunted. And I have to admit that I am behind the times. I have continually heard how popular the AR-15 style rifle is for gun owners, so I had to see if it was used for hunting. I was shocked that about 60% of hunters have used this gun. That is a huge number for just one make. I do understand that if one added all of the percentages up that the number will exceed100%. That is because most hunters have more than one gun. But for 60% to have used one style is amazing. I do have to agree that going after a gun because it looks bad is pointless.

Performance Grade AR Style Modern Hunting Rifles - Brenton USA
Click to expand...
The thing with AR Style is that it is a style.
Meaning that there is almost every caliber available in the AR Style.
I have a few different ones, including .22lr, 12 ga., and 7.26
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Mestemia said:
The thing with AR Style is that it is a style.
Meaning that there is almost every caliber available in the AR Style.
I have a few different ones, including .22lr, 12 ga., and 7.26
Click to expand...
Yes, but they look evil!! Sorry we must ban them.:mad:

Seriously, they appear to be just good engineering. The ban was pointless.
 
Altfish

Altfish

Veteran Member
Mestemia said:
And yet the articles I linked do in fact prove that the ban failed to stop firearm related crimes with the "banned" weapons....
Which is what I actually said.
​
Click to expand...
In UK, we have a total ban (just about) there are still firearm incidents. So no ban will "Stop firearm related crime" BUT a reduction is a win.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Mestemia said:
What are the numbers for California.
Did the ban actually lower them?
Click to expand...
It was probably as effective as roping off a "no peeing" section of the pool.

Since people can freely move from one state to another, an assault weapon ban - however one defines "assault weapon" - would need to be national to be properly effective.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
In a press conference Thursday announcing that an appeal has been filed, Bonta, a Democrat, called the judge's opinion "disturbing and troubling and of great concern."

"We cannot be and we are not deterred by this ruling," he said.

Bonta said his office will ask the appeals court to stay the district court's ruling, which would extend the 30-day stay and leave the laws in place during the appeals process.
​
California appeals judge's ruling that overturned state's ban on assault-style weapons - CNNPolitics

​
Here is how I hope it plays out:

California brings to the table a buttload of numbers.
Everyone scrutinizes the hell out of the numbers.
Hopefully it will result in revealing the effectiveness of the ban.
​

Now since there are an awful lot of extremists on both sides, I will not be holding my breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top