"California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

1
California bans guns for domestic violence offenders. It bans them for people deemed a danger to others or themselves. There is a ban on large-capacity magazines, and a ban on noise-muffling silencers. Semiautomatic guns of the sort colloquially known as “assault weapons” are, famously, banned. More than 100 gun laws — the most of any state — are on the books in California. They have saved lives, policymakers say: Californians have among the lowest rates of gun death in the United States. Yet this month, those laws failed to stop the massacres of at least 19 people in back-to-back mass shootings.

The tragedies in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay have confounded Americans who regard California as a best-case bastion of gun safety in a nation awash with firearms. Inside the state, gun rights proponents say the shootings show that California’s strategy is a failure. Gun safety groups, meanwhile, have already begun mobilizing for more laws and better enforcement. As details emerge in the investigations, numerous shortcomings have been highlighted, even with California’s voluminous law.
But Jesse Gabriel, a Los Angeles-area Democrat in the state Assembly who co-chairs a legislative working group on gun violence prevention, said the group has already moved up its February meeting to discuss new legislation. Proposals include a state excise tax on ammunition and guns, a measure to add three years to an existing ban on gun ownership for people who have had domestic violence orders filed against them, a proposal to make the possession of an unregistered “ghost” gun a felony and a bill to let people suffering a mental health crisis put their own names on a “do not sell” list. A campaign to expand awareness of gun violence restraining orders also is underway.

Also in the pipeline, he added, is a bill to align the state’s laws on permits to carry concealed weapons in public with a sweeping June Supreme Court ruling that upended gun control laws in at least a half-dozen states, including California. Applauded by gun rights groups, the decision has unleashed a barrage of court challenges to California gun laws, including the bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines that are pending now before Judge Benitez. Rob Bonta, the California attorney general, said the concealed carry revision is essential, as are tighter gun regulations. “Is there something new that hasn’t been done?” Mr. Bonta said. “That’s what we’re asking ourselves.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/us/c ... tings.html
https://archive.ph/GjLDb


An earlier WaPo article "A leader in gun control efforts, California confronts its limits"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... -gun-laws/
https://archive.ph/2etcS#selection-285.0-285.64


Reload "California’s Gun Death Rate Isn’t as Impressive as California Governor Newsom Implies"
https://thereload.com/analysis-californ ... exclusive/
https://archive.ph/Vx7nz

Newsom and Democrats in the CA Legislature have tunnel vision, their only answer to violence is more gun laws. Get rid of evil guns and peace and tranquility will return to California, just like a feel good Disney movie.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

3
Nick Kristoff wrote an interesting op-ed in the NYT a few days ago, essentially saying: Gun control laws banning guns clearly doesn't work, just like abolition of Alcohol didn't work, created more problems. But while Alcohol deaths are still about 4x greater than ALL gun deaths, they have been brought down by regulation--who can get the stuff. Similar approaches to car safety have cut highway deaths and death rates drastically. Similar tools can be used against the REAL problem, people shooting other people and themselves, and not by seizing guns willy-nilly. He even, reluctantly, acknowledges that "Assault rifles" (mis-using the term) are a miniscule part of gun deaths, far out-weighed by, of course, 9mm handguns. He does, of course, endorse UBC, removing guns from violent felons AND violent misdemeanants, raising gun ownership age universally to 21, and even prevention programs.

Some of his stats are cooked--like he uses 2021's gun death total of 48k, but not 2022's total of 44k--that 4k drop was due totally to NON-suicide gun deaths.
Nor does he point at that ALL AR-15/AK-47 gun deaths are contained within the rifle death total he cites.

Still, for a big-time Liberal like Nick Kristoff to so abandon the "nobody should have a gun anytime anywhere" mantra is a big step toward acknowledging reality.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

4
Apparently the assumption is that people intent on breaking the law can be controlled by making more laws. If your only tool is a hammer, you use nails. Maybe if we hired people who want to study a problem before solving it- people who knew the difference between full automatic and full semi automatic, people who had used guns or who knew enough to talk to people who use guns before enacting useless laws.

I would like to see laws explain how they are going to solve a problem and have some kind of follow up procedure built in to measure effectiveness, and some kind of tracking mechanism so we could point out useless laws to the elected officials who passed them, and then be able to rub their noses in the wasted laws.

As we have seen in federal level elections, anybody can get elected, even complete idiots and even imaginary people-but it seems most elected figures have some degree of "con person" in them. Probably a requirement for being electable.

Re: "California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

5
Yup. We've got more than plenty of gun laws in this state. Yes, our per 100k gun homicide rate is lower than most states but it's still unacceptably high to this liberal gun owner. It's time for the legislature to try something else. Hardware bans don't work. Improving underlying societal conditions seems like a worthy goal that would improve lives rather than restrict rights.

Re: "California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

6
YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:44 am

--snrps--
Nor does he point at that ALL AR-15/AK-47 gun deaths are contained within the rifle death total he cites.

Still, for a big-time Liberal like Nick Kristoff to so abandon the "nobody should have a gun anytime anywhere" mantra is a big step toward acknowledging reality.
Yes: the deaths from "semi automatic rifles capable of accepting detachable magazines" indeed is represented only by a small fraction of incidents. I also agree that Kristoff shows a sea change in attitude from the chattering class. I think that is because more and more liberals buy now for protection. I think it is up to clubs like ours to make sure new gun owners practice frequently in competition and get training where they can. An educated and practiced gun owner is a safe gun owner. And I agree that blue states are safer states by and large.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

7
With all the proposals for changes in the laws there is one I am conflated about. That is the idea to raise the age of buying a gun to 21y.o. My dad bought my first gun for my 16th birthday in 1967. I still have it a Marlin 22lr carbine. I had already learnt to shoot and know the rules of gun safety from Boy Scouts and my Dad. There was rules sat down by my dad not to take the gun out of the house without letting ether parent know and why.

I also remember when the 26th amendment allowing 18 y.o. to vote was passed. Texas among other states lowered the drinking age to 18. Turned out to be a disaster. Seems over all 18 y.o. can't hold the liquor especially among the 16 and 17 y.o. friends in high school. As the old saying goes, "When I was 18 y.o. I thought my old man was the dumbest person on earth. By the time I turned 21y.o., it was amazing how much the old man had learned." It boils down to maturity. How many stories do we read about an 18 y.o. buying a gun and then using it to kill someone ether by accident or intentionally. So we can let them vote, but not buy a gun.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: "California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

8
TrueTexan wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:58 am With all the proposals for changes in the laws there is one I am conflated about. That is the idea to raise the age of buying a gun to 21y.o. My dad bought my first gun for my 16th birthday in 1967. I still have it a Marlin 22lr carbine. I had already learnt to shoot and know the rules of gun safety from Boy Scouts and my Dad. There was rules sat down by my dad not to take the gun out of the house without letting ether parent know and why.

I also remember when the 26th amendment allowing 18 y.o. to vote was passed. Texas among other states lowered the drinking age to 18. Turned out to be a disaster. Seems over all 18 y.o. can't hold the liquor especially among the 16 and 17 y.o. friends in high school. As the old saying goes, "When I was 18 y.o. I thought my old man was the dumbest person on earth. By the time I turned 21y.o., it was amazing how much the old man had learned." It boils down to maturity. How many stories do we read about an 18 y.o. buying a gun and then using it to kill someone ether by accident or intentionally. So we can let them vote, but not buy a gun.
My dad bought mine for me in 1960 when I was nearly 8. He kept the bullets, though. The caliber was 8x50r, which was quite uncommon. It was WWI surplus even in 1960, so I could not go down to the local hardware store and score a box. So, he knew I was too young to decide about whether and whom to shoot. I also got to vote for the first time in 1972 against Nixon because of the 26th Amendment and have kept voting ever since. I think 18 year olds are old enough to decide about voting but likely not yet old enough to decide whether and whom to shoot with a hand gun or semi automatic rifle. This is because one vote among millions is one vote, but there's only one finger on a trigger.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

13
YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:54 pm
highdesert wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:09 pm This is Nick Kristoff's opinion piece that YT discussed above.
https://archive.ph/CX5TM
I thought it had numerous holes in it but for a flaming liberal I found it to be a fine start!

Yes, for a flaming liberal from Westchester County, NY. Wished he had qualified to run for Oregon governor last year, I think he could have provided a new perspective in the race. He grew up in Oregon and still has property there.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

15
CDFingers wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:16 am
TrueTexan wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:58 am With all the proposals for changes in the laws there is one I am conflated about. That is the idea to raise the age of buying a gun to 21y.o. My dad bought my first gun for my 16th birthday in 1967. I still have it a Marlin 22lr carbine. I had already learnt to shoot and know the rules of gun safety from Boy Scouts and my Dad. There was rules sat down by my dad not to take the gun out of the house without letting ether parent know and why.

I also remember when the 26th amendment allowing 18 y.o. to vote was passed. Texas among other states lowered the drinking age to 18. Turned out to be a disaster. Seems over all 18 y.o. can't hold the liquor especially among the 16 and 17 y.o. friends in high school. As the old saying goes, "When I was 18 y.o. I thought my old man was the dumbest person on earth. By the time I turned 21y.o., it was amazing how much the old man had learned." It boils down to maturity. How many stories do we read about an 18 y.o. buying a gun and then using it to kill someone ether by accident or intentionally. So we can let them vote, but not buy a gun.
My dad bought mine for me in 1960 when I was nearly 8. He kept the bullets, though. The caliber was 8x50r, which was quite uncommon. It was WWI surplus even in 1960, so I could not go down to the local hardware store and score a box. So, he knew I was too young to decide about whether and whom to shoot. I also got to vote for the first time in 1972 against Nixon because of the 26th Amendment and have kept voting ever since. I think 18 year olds are old enough to decide about voting but likely not yet old enough to decide whether and whom to shoot with a hand gun or semi automatic rifle. This is because one vote among millions is one vote, but there's only one finger on a trigger.

CDFingers
In that case, gentlemen, we would need to raise both the age of the draft and the age of eligibility for military service to 21 as well. Eighteen year olds get issued fully-automatic, i. e. machine gun, M16's, including M4 Carbines. That was true when I was in the military, and it remains true today.

"Oh, but Sarge keeps tight control on them!" So what? We're still putting machine guns with 5.56 NATO rounds into the hands of 18-year-olds, and Sarge cannot watch them every second, not even every minute. I knew the guys guarding the flightline. I also knew several Army and USMC infantry guys. They were the same age I was at that time, under 21. So, that'll have to stop as well.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: "California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

16
CowboyT wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:09 pm
CDFingers wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:16 am
TrueTexan wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:58 am With all the proposals for changes in the laws there is one I am conflated about. That is the idea to raise the age of buying a gun to 21y.o. My dad bought my first gun for my 16th birthday in 1967. I still have it a Marlin 22lr carbine. I had already learnt to shoot and know the rules of gun safety from Boy Scouts and my Dad. There was rules sat down by my dad not to take the gun out of the house without letting ether parent know and why.

I also remember when the 26th amendment allowing 18 y.o. to vote was passed. Texas among other states lowered the drinking age to 18. Turned out to be a disaster. Seems over all 18 y.o. can't hold the liquor especially among the 16 and 17 y.o. friends in high school. As the old saying goes, "When I was 18 y.o. I thought my old man was the dumbest person on earth. By the time I turned 21y.o., it was amazing how much the old man had learned." It boils down to maturity. How many stories do we read about an 18 y.o. buying a gun and then using it to kill someone ether by accident or intentionally. So we can let them vote, but not buy a gun.
My dad bought mine for me in 1960 when I was nearly 8. He kept the bullets, though. The caliber was 8x50r, which was quite uncommon. It was WWI surplus even in 1960, so I could not go down to the local hardware store and score a box. So, he knew I was too young to decide about whether and whom to shoot. I also got to vote for the first time in 1972 against Nixon because of the 26th Amendment and have kept voting ever since. I think 18 year olds are old enough to decide about voting but likely not yet old enough to decide whether and whom to shoot with a hand gun or semi automatic rifle. This is because one vote among millions is one vote, but there's only one finger on a trigger.

CDFingers
In that case, gentlemen, we would need to raise both the age of the draft and the age of eligibility for military service to 21 as well. Eighteen year olds get issued fully-automatic, i. e. machine gun, M16's, including M4 Carbines. That was true when I was in the military, and it remains true today.

"Oh, but Sarge keeps tight control on them!" So what? We're still putting machine guns with 5.56 NATO rounds into the hands of 18-year-olds, and Sarge cannot watch them every second, not even every minute. I knew the guys guarding the flightline. I also knew several Army and USMC infantry guys. They were the same age I was at that time, under 21. So, that'll have to stop as well.
Agree. A bit of a contradiction when adulthood begins. My take pick an age, but if it’s 21 then no more voting, drinking and no military service for anyone under 21 or any other activity consenting adults do including marriage or civil unions.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

17
sikacz wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:44 pm
CowboyT wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:09 pm
CDFingers wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:16 am
TrueTexan wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:58 am With all the proposals for changes in the laws there is one I am conflated about. That is the idea to raise the age of buying a gun to 21y.o. My dad bought my first gun for my 16th birthday in 1967. I still have it a Marlin 22lr carbine. I had already learnt to shoot and know the rules of gun safety from Boy Scouts and my Dad. There was rules sat down by my dad not to take the gun out of the house without letting ether parent know and why.

I also remember when the 26th amendment allowing 18 y.o. to vote was passed. Texas among other states lowered the drinking age to 18. Turned out to be a disaster. Seems over all 18 y.o. can't hold the liquor especially among the 16 and 17 y.o. friends in high school. As the old saying goes, "When I was 18 y.o. I thought my old man was the dumbest person on earth. By the time I turned 21y.o., it was amazing how much the old man had learned." It boils down to maturity. How many stories do we read about an 18 y.o. buying a gun and then using it to kill someone ether by accident or intentionally. So we can let them vote, but not buy a gun.
My dad bought mine for me in 1960 when I was nearly 8. He kept the bullets, though. The caliber was 8x50r, which was quite uncommon. It was WWI surplus even in 1960, so I could not go down to the local hardware store and score a box. So, he knew I was too young to decide about whether and whom to shoot. I also got to vote for the first time in 1972 against Nixon because of the 26th Amendment and have kept voting ever since. I think 18 year olds are old enough to decide about voting but likely not yet old enough to decide whether and whom to shoot with a hand gun or semi automatic rifle. This is because one vote among millions is one vote, but there's only one finger on a trigger.

CDFingers
In that case, gentlemen, we would need to raise both the age of the draft and the age of eligibility for military service to 21 as well. Eighteen year olds get issued fully-automatic, i. e. machine gun, M16's, including M4 Carbines. That was true when I was in the military, and it remains true today.

"Oh, but Sarge keeps tight control on them!" So what? We're still putting machine guns with 5.56 NATO rounds into the hands of 18-year-olds, and Sarge cannot watch them every second, not even every minute. I knew the guys guarding the flightline. I also knew several Army and USMC infantry guys. They were the same age I was at that time, under 21. So, that'll have to stop as well.
Agree. A a very big contradiction when adulthood begins. My take pick an age, but if it’s 21 then no more voting, drinking and no military service for anyone under 21 or any other activity consenting adults do including marriage or civil unions.
I agree and I'd add that they couldn't legally sign a contract be responsible for debt or criminally be charged as an adult until they were 21 years old. Legislators pick and choose so our laws are inconsistent.

Kids in Europe are introduced to alcohol earlier, beer and wine with their parents and restricted to buying beer and wine on their own until they're older. Teens and under 21s do it already in the US, our Puritan and blue law legacy still prevails along with fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity. It's stupid, we should teach teens to be responsible drinkers, so they don't resort to binge drinking with illegal liquor.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

19
We have to note at least two things. First, the Second Amendment only refers to "the People." Second, each state may under the Constitution determine things like age of consent, when to get a driver license, when one can buy a hand gun, when to drink, and so on; it stands to reason the issue of semi auto rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine also would be eligible for molestation at the state level.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "California Has More Than 100 Gun Laws. Why Don’t They Stop More Mass Shootings?"

20
Normally it would totally be up to each individual state to determine the drinking age, but thanks to lobbying by Cindy Lightner and MADD the restriction passed and became law. It was a Democratic bill carried by Glenn Anderson (D-CA) in the House and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) in the Senate. At that time the House was Democratic and the Senate was Republican and it was signed into law by Reagan.
The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, [23 U.S.C. § 158], requires that States prohibit persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving State highway funds.
https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/the ... y%20funds.

And in 1987, SCOTUS upheld the law.
South Dakota v. Dole was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 23, 1987, that upheld the constitutionality of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The case concerned whether withholding a percentage of federal highway funding from states that did not comply with the act exceeded Congress' spending power under the General Welfare Clause. The Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 decision that Congress could impose conditions on state grants without exceeding constitutional authority.
https://ballotpedia.org/National_Minimu ... ge%20Act.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Bing [Bot], Semrush [Bot] and 2 guests