Why gun control push fizzled?

[WildCat]

We're talking about general legislation, not constitutional amendments. Now, California is one of the biggest gun markets, and gun manufacturers will have to change their policies to suit California's laws.

Doubtful.

They'll just stop selling semi-automatics in California. You have to have a box magazine for nearly all rifle calibers, those bullets can't be used in tube magazines because the recoil can push the pointy end of one bullet into the primer of the one in front of it with enough force to ignite the primer. And bullets firing inside a magazine is not good...

More gun laws passed by idiot politicians who know nothing at all about guns.

 

[triforcharity]

Well, in California, they just passed a pigouvian tax on ammunition purchases. that might be applied across all future states.

I read about that. I see that as a clear violation of the spirit of the 2A, and likely will end up in court, possibly as high as the SCOTUS.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Doubtful.

They'll just stop selling semi-automatics in California. You have to have a box magazine for nearly all rifle calibers, those bullets can't be used in tube magazines because the recoil can push the pointy end of one bullet into the primer of the one in front of it with enough force to ignite the primer. And bullets firing inside a magazine is not good...

More gun laws passed by idiot politicians who know nothing at all about guns.

Or maybe it's an urban majority who see little to zero social utility in stockpiling ammunition and are frankly terrified of the "from my cold dead hands" mentality, since that is largely far right nutters or manchildren who see semi-automatics as toys.

 

[WildCat]

Or maybe it's an urban majority who see little to zero social utility in stockpiling ammunition and are frankly terrified of the "from my cold dead hands" mentality, since that is largely far right nutters or manchildren who see semi-automatics as toys.

3,000 rounds is not "stockpiling". I've gone through over 2,000 just in the last month and a half - about 700 .40 S&W, 100 or so .44 Magnum, over 800 .22 LR, and about 600 12 gauge shooting clays.

Does California want to discourage marksmanship for gun owners who have guns for self defense, so the odds of missing what they're aiming at decreases and the odds of collateral damage increase? Or hunters who can't afford to keep up their skills due to prohibitive cost of ammo, and thus miss the killing shot and leave a wounded animal to escape only to suffer a lingering death?

It's the legitimate sportsmen who go through large amounts of ammo, not the gangbangers in Los Angeles and Oakland whose entire experience shooting guns is at other people. This will have no effect whatsoever on the homicide rate in California.

 

[WildCat]

More failure to enforce existing gun laws

An Albany Park man pleaded guilty today to a weapons charge after being arrested last summer when he pulled a gun and pointed it at players and their families during a soccer game near Montrose Harbor, prosecutors said.

Jaime Gutierrez, 20, pleaded guilty to aggravated unlawful use of a weapon before Cook County Criminal Court Judge Sharon Sullivan who sentenced him to one year in prison, said Lisa Gordon, a spokeswoman for the Cook County State's Attorney.

Gutierrez, of the 3600 block of West Leland Avenue in the Albany Park neighborhood, was arrested July 29 and originally charged with unlawful use of a weapon and possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, both felonies.

He was also charged with misdemeanor reckless conduct, possession of a firearm without a valid FOID card and possession of ammunition without a valid FOID card, police said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...t-during-soccer-game-20130618,0,3097410.story

So they drop several of the charges - including possessing a gun with a defaced serial number - and gets just one year. He may be out already if he had been jailed while awaiting trial. So now this admitted gangbanger will soon be once again roaming the streets of my neighborhood, I guess they'll wait until he kills somebody (if he hasn't already) before getting serious with him.

And note he wasn't even charged at all with violating Chicago's firearms ordinance, they rarely are. That ordinance exists solely to make life difficult for the law-abiding gun owner.

 

[shuize]

As someone who made a nice profit on gun stocks, I would like to encourage all my anti-gun friends to revive the debate for another round of increased demand.

 

[newyorkguy]

...

Does California want to discourage marksmanship for gun owners who have guns for self defense, so the odds of missing what they're aiming at decreases and the odds of collateral damage increase?
<snip>

Who are these people who are always being attacked by gun-wielding thugs? Why don't they just move to a better neighborhood? Both of them.

 

[tyr_13]

Who are these people who are always being attacked by gun-wielding thugs? Why don't they just move to a better neighborhood? Both of them.

Not only is this a blatant straw man, it's not even knocked over by your assertion.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

3,000 rounds is not "stockpiling". I've gone through over 2,000 just in the last month and a half - about 700 .40 S&W, 100 or so .44 Magnum, over 800 .22 LR, and about 600 12 gauge shooting clays.

Does California want to discourage marksmanship for gun owners who have guns for self defense, so the odds of missing what they're aiming at decreases and the odds of collateral damage increase? Or hunters who can't afford to keep up their skills due to prohibitive cost of ammo, and thus miss the killing shot and leave a wounded animal to escape only to suffer a lingering death?

It's the legitimate sportsmen who go through large amounts of ammo, not the gangbangers in Los Angeles and Oakland whose entire experience shooting guns is at other people. This will have no effect whatsoever on the homicide rate in California.

Given that the majority of gun owners are old white men who live in the country (who are dying out), and the victims of gun crime are largely urban minorities (who are gaining due to demographic shifts), Californians are largely getting behind gun control efforts. We can even see Pigouvian taxes of $50k per bullet in the near future.

 

[WildCat]

Given that the majority of gun owners are old white men who live in the country (who are dying out), and the victims of gun crime are largely urban minorities (who are gaining due to demographic shifts), Californians are largely getting behind gun control efforts. We can even see Pigouvian taxes of $50k per bullet in the near future.

Odd how many minorities I see in gun stores and ranges these days, I guess no one told them that NWO Sentryman says minorities shouldn't be armed.

I'm not an "old white man", nor do I live in a rural or even suburban area. And fully half the people I saw on the range yesterday were women.

Have you ever been to a range?

And $50,000 per bullet?

 

[newyorkguy]

This is the problem with gun threads. The gamesmanship.

Who are these people who are always being attacked by gun-wielding thugs? Why don't they just move to a better neighborhood? Both of them.

Not only is this a blatant straw man, it's not even knocked over by your assertion.

tyr_13 finds the above to be " a blatant straw man." But the comment that engendered it?

Does California want to discourage marksmanship for gun owners who have guns for self defense, so the odds of missing what they're aiming at decreases and the odds of collateral damage increase?
...

No problem.

 

[Dcdrac]

Mainly because US politicians are too damn scared of the NRA.

 

[tyr_13]

This is the problem with gun threads. The gamesmanship.

Yes, so stop it.

tyr_13 finds the above to be " a blatant straw man." But the comment that engendered it?



No problem.

You're cherry picking his overall point with one about self defense, adding in absurdities that make it a straw man, and I object to that. I happen to agree with Wildcat's overall point in that post which is that such acts as California's disproportionately effect lawful owners and hobbiest, one of those ways being that they won't be as good at hitting things from lack of practice. So I didn't object to that. That you attacked your straw man by asserting that there are no people attacked by thugs in California, well, that's just silly. Next you'll say it is uncommon, as if that makes it alright.

Come up with a better argument, and I won't object to it by calling it a straw man. Unless it's just a better straw man of course.

 

[Sabretooth]

Who are these people who are always being attacked by gun-wielding thugs? Why don't they just move to a better neighborhood? Both of them.

Are you being serious? I can't even tell anymore.

 

[Sabretooth]

Given that the majority of gun owners are old white men who live in the country (who are dying out)...

[citation needed]

...and the victims of gun crime are largely urban minorities (who are gaining due to demographic shifts)...

[citation needed]

Californians are largely getting behind gun control efforts. We can even see Pigouvian taxes of $50k per bullet in the near future.

OK, so you've suggested a way to keep the lawful/legal gun owners to basically stop using their firearms...but please tell us how this reduces criminal/gang use? You think they are going to pay...well...anything at all to obtain ammunition?

I keep hearing these suggestions...over and over and over again...that are great ways to reduce or discourage LEGAL ownership of firearms, but it's all just smoke and mirror, feel-good nonsense. It doesn't solve the problem of the illegal guns in the hands of criminals.

 

[newyorkguy]

I'm not practicing gamesmanship.

The statement was made -- with no citation, source or reference -- that gun owners in California need to be able to buy reasonably priced ammunition so they can be proficient in hitting their target instead of an innocent bystander. I made a light-hearted response. My point was serious though: how often do gun owners get into a armed confrontation with an attacker? Is it often enough that it should be a major factor in taxing ammunition?

Your response was to call it a straw man.

What you didn't do was say, 'Oh really? You think it doesn't happen?' And then cite some statistics or studies that prove resisting an armed attacker, in this case in California, does happen quite a bit. That it's a serious concern. (Not just say it is, but back it up with something tangible.)

I suspect you can't do that. So what option is left? Accuse me of introducing a straw man.

I could say the same thing to the person who, I just noticed, has posted the same type message while I'm typing this one.

Am I serious? Is practicing with a gun important in California so when someone has to shoot it out with an armed attacker they're an accurate shot? Are there any stats or studies on how often it happens?

Serious question. Most police officers go through their entire career without having to fire their gun at anyone. So who are these gun owners who are constantly getting into armed confrontations? I'd like to know.

 

[WildCat]

I'm not practicing gamesmanship.

The statement was made -- with no citation, source or reference -- that gun owners in California need to be able to buy reasonably priced ammunition so they can be proficient in hitting their target instead of an innocent bystander. I made a light-hearted response. My point was serious though: how often do gun owners get into a armed confrontation with an attacker? Is it often enough that it should be a major factor in taxing ammunition?

Do you or don't you think that gun owners should be proficient with their firearms?

Do you think that increasing the cost of shooting results in more or less practice with said firearms?

You also purposely ignored the part about hunters needing to be proficient in order to avoid merely wounding their game.

And you have offered absolutely no evidence, let alone any reasoning, as to how a tax on ammunition would lead to fewer gun deaths. Ammunition taxes exclusively affect only the law-abiding, a gangbanger isn't going to be deterred having to pay a little extra for the very few rounds they'll ever shoot in their lifetime. The sportsman who fires thousands of rounds a year, however, will be greatly affected.

 

[Giz]

The statement was made -- with no citation, source or reference -- that gun owners in California need to be able to buy reasonably priced ammunition so they can be proficient in hitting their target instead of an innocent bystander. I made a light-hearted response. My point was serious though: how often do gun owners get into a armed confrontation with an attacker? Is it often enough that it should be a major factor in taxing ammunition?

Or perhaps the question should be:

how often do lawful gun owners misuse their gun relative to safe & lawful usage of that gun on the range? Is it relatively often enough that it should be a major factor in taxing ammunition?

Am I serious? Is practicing with a gun important in California so when someone has to shoot it out with an armed attacker they're an accurate shot? Are there any stats or studies on how often it happens?

Serious question. Most police officers go through their entire career without having to fire their gun at anyone. So who are these gun owners who are constantly getting into armed confrontations? I'd like to know.

Wow. Well, using your logic, presumably Police Officers shouldn't practice either. I mean, "Most police officers go through their entire career without having to fire their gun at anyone", right?

 

[Giz]

[citation needed]


[citation needed]


OK, so you've suggested a way to keep the lawful/legal gun owners to basically stop using their firearms...but please tell us how this reduces criminal/gang use? You think they are going to pay...well...anything at all to obtain ammunition?

I keep hearing these suggestions...over and over and over again...that are great ways to reduce or discourage LEGAL ownership of firearms, but it's all just smoke and mirror, feel-good nonsense. It doesn't solve the problem of the illegal guns in the hands of criminals.

This is the problem with the debate in a nutshell.

 

[newyorkguy]

Do you or don't you think that gun owners should be proficient with their firearms?

I didn't know that was in question. Yes, that makes sense.

Do you think that increasing the cost of shooting results in more or less practice with said firearms?

I have no idea. Most of it is recreational, right? So if it's basically a hobby raising the costs might not reduce people's practice time. Look at the way golf course fees have skyrocketed in recent years. That hasn't reduced play.

You also purposely ignored the part about hunters needing to be proficient in order to avoid merely wounding their game.

I didn't purposefully ignore it. I agree with it.

And you have offered absolutely no evidence, let alone any reasoning, as to how a tax on ammunition would lead to fewer gun deaths. Ammunition taxes exclusively affect only the law-abiding, a gangbanger isn't going to be deterred having to pay a little extra for the very few rounds they'll ever shoot in their lifetime. The sportsman who fires thousands of rounds a year, however, will be greatly affected.

Who said anything about an ammo tax leading to fewer gun deaths? Is that one of the reasons they did it? Are you certain about that? My first reaction is, the effect on total gun deaths would be negligible.