So after the latest mass shooting in California how do we actually go about enacting stricter gun control through common sense gun laws? I'm not talking an outright gun ban, that would be insane but the system we have is clearly broken and something needs to be done to protect innocent lives from more gun violence.
sciencealert.com
Other urls found in this thread:
forbes.com
lawcenter.giffords.org
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
twitter.com
It may save lives, but it will cost others. Guns are used defensively way more than they are used offensively.
EXPECT ANOTHER MOSSAD MASS SHOOTING TOMORROW.
PREDICTIVE PROGRAMMING THREAD.
Yes but greater regulation on guns can and does make it harder for guns to get in to the hands of those that do not have any business owning them. I own a gun myself and to be 100% honest it was shockingly easy to purchase even with the fact I live in California which has very low gun violence rates due to our progressive gun laws. More can be done to help save lives.
>It may save lives
Capitulators deserve the rope too. In fact, moreso.
How would it not save lives?
do you have any fucking clue what it takes to purchase a firearm? do you have any clue about the process.
it's pretty clear you do not so kindly fuck off
>gun control is the modern left's version of "not real communism"
Gavin Newson is about to try a whole new era "that wasn't real gun control!"
those messures you propose only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals a psychos dont care about the law.
Haha XD
by understanding that you can actually do nothing and gun control doesn't actually work. they keep putting more and more laws on the books and they don't help, just inconvenience or hinder law abiding citizens. murder is already illegal, and prohibition doesn't work (see: Prohibition, war on drugs).
we have an enormous, diverse population, and basically we're about 1:1 on guns to people so yeah, shit will happen. the numbers show that
that "gun deaths" are basically statistically insignificant, but the media makes sure to oversensationalize to keep the topic in people's minds specifically so (((they))) can get more useless laws passed. if nothing is banned it’s not “progress” and if no new legislation gets passed no dems get to hang their hat on it to show they “did something”. only thing you can really do is encourage people to learn how to defend themselves.
An armed populace allows for tragedies
A disarmed populace allows for atrocities
the distinction is important.
I walked in to the store, got my fsc after taking a test, selected the gun, filled out paperwork, had a background check done, and waited 10 days to pick it up.
I have purchased a gun. It was extremely easy to do so and there's no way a background check that comes back almost immediately is thorough enough to really look at a person's background. It took me less than an hour to purchase a gun.
Get rid of gun control entirely. Gun control increases crime and violates the 2nd Amendment.
>common sense gun laws
Ban blacks from having guns
Fuck off, you dumb motherfucker.
Yes, I won't way it doesn't affect law abiding citizens which is an unfortunate side effect of stricter gun laws but it also makes it harder for the guns to get in to circulation and end up in the hands of dangerous people.
Yes, but see above. I don't want to disarm law abiding citizens. I want to make sure that the scales tip to having fewer guns in the hands of the unscrupulous by making it more difficult to have the guns put in to circulation.
I do not want to disarm law abiding citizens.
Kek
how about Stricter Wildfires laws?! Fire' right to burn doesn't trump my right to not get burned!
#BANASSAULTFIRESNOW
Why not just kill yourself, OP?
prove it, FAGGOT! post a photo with your hand, gun and timestamp
SHUT THE FUCK UP
that's what happens when you check a database, they check 3 BTW. maybe you would prefer a secret service style background check where they do person interviews and while you're wishing for unrealistic things you might as well wish that people weren't assholes while you're at it.
the CA shooter would have been issued a firearm under the strictest policies because at most he was an asshole.
>this guy is kind of a jerk so let's take away his constitutionally protected rights.
sorry but people like that will always slip though. people like Nick Cruz will slip through due to incompetence, unless you can magically wish away incompetence.
the solution has nothing to do with stricter laws but asking ourselves what the fuck is wrong with our society.
No.
>be california
>have strictest gun laws in america
>removing weapons from law abiding citizens
>cant understand why crime rate is so high even though the state is full of fucked up degenerates from other countrys
>have a mass shooting but nobody can legally protect themselvs.
>not even allowed to disagree with people
Fuck you. its pretty proven that "common sense gun laws" dont fucking work. get the fuck out and take your matza enthusiasts with you.
The only common sense gun control is no gun control at all.
I don’t need a picture to tell me to improve myself. That being said...
The rate of victimization so far for people killed in mass murder shooting incidents in 2018 is 2.3 per 10 million. Keep in mind that overhyping statistically rare events legitimizes racist talking points about the threat of black on white homicide.
where are the bullets, scumbag?! only a fag would have an unloaded gun.
either way, why don't you take that shit and turn it in to police station tomorrow morning?
gun control is easy
DONT LET NIGGERS HAVE GUNS
well spoken user. best i could do was get angry. simply put. good men dont need laws. bad men dont follow them anyways.
The short answer is math.
rollin' like a Hugo Boss
Every natural-born US citizen without a felony conviction is given the offer to enroll in a firearm training course teaching safe use, marksmanship, and emergency response best practices. Upon the completion of the course, they are issued a 9mm pistol, a concealed carry permit valid in every state, a thousand rounds of ammunition, and a hundred dollars. Completing a refresher course (may be done annually) will provide another thousand rounds and hundred dollars.
>if we ban guns we have less gun deaths
>pay no attention to the massive uptick in overall violence and stabbings due to criminals continuing to commit crimes because they're criminals and the glut of now defenceless people to prey on.
why can't commies just move to one of the worlds many other cuckocracies instead of shitting up the US?
>what the fuck is wrong with our society.
JEWS
fuck me! anyone who doesn't take up that offer is a fucking moron and don't deserve to be a citizen
turn in your gun tomorrow, you're a faggot
So where is your argument now?
Make parents legally responsible for violent crimes committed by their children.
CA's laws for handguns:
- Must be 21.
- Must pass a written exam, which is to be renewed every two years.
- Must pass background check (like every state).
- Must pass background check for ammunition.
- Limited to two handguns per month.
- Must wait ten days until you can take your firearm home.
- Extended magazines for handguns are illegal.
What else could have been done to stop this individual who used a .45 handgun? I know you're trolling, but there are living, breathing individuals who actually share your sentiment reading this comment. So I ask you, lurker, what else would you want to do if not completely eradicate the 2A?
it pisses me off too. virtually all gun owners are law abiding citizens exercising our constitutional right. yet these fucking dipshit liberals want to take our rights away because someone kills somebody. instead of finding out why they just want to whittle away at our rights. those fuckers never let a tragedy go to waste. they're emotionally manipulative pricks. they play on people's emotions and sense of probity to advance their political agenda. it's not like they give a shit, it's all about their agenda by any means.
Your answer is certifiable garbage.
forbes.com
>Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
>limited to two handguns per month
Wrong, you are limited to one NEW handgun per month and the law does not apply to purchase of consignment weapons through an FFL. It's a massive loophole that needs to be closed. I honestly feel that it should be one handgun every year.
California has extremely strict gun laws; stricter than Switzerland.
And the Czech Republic and Canada as well.
Your laws failed
the short answer is niggers. that's why Alabama has such a high score.
>I honestly feel that it should be one handgun every year.
why?
every gun law you make that limits guns results in more deaths
9 lives are saved for every person killed so there is a net gain of 8 lives saved for each time a gun is used to kill another. so essentially each gun you remove murders 8 people from being unable to defend themselves. no matter what you do with gun laws you only hurt law abiding citizens. the best way to deal with it is to make the crimes punished harsher, such as summary execution for committing a felony with a gun.
Our laws are flawed and need to be strengthened. If not for groups like the NRA interfering with the ability to pass laws as they were written California would be a shining example of how gun control works in the same vein as australia albeit with less extreme control.
>the law does not apply to purchase of consignment weapons through an FFL.
I challenge your statement, and I ask you to prove that. No FFL dealer in CA would risk their livelihood on a goofy loophole like that. It would make much more sense to just go to a show, buy a C&R, and walk out with it the day of.
>If not for groups like the NRA
You mean a group that focuses strictly on protecting an amendment to our Constitution, just like how the ACLU protects the 1st? Why are you upset that there are organizations actively making sure that people are allowed their due protection?
What the US needs is mental health reform when it comes to males. Psychology is an arts faculty and arts is too focused on the female perspective.
get the fuck out commie
It's because it is considered a transfer between private parties with the FFL simply conducting the transfer.
lawcenter.giffords.org
Here we go.
>scientific-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-saves-lives
because science never lies, right?
maybe if the cops were allowed to carry their weapons off duty the shooter wouldn't have had such an easy time of it.
jews, not even once.
We're not going to get anywhere with mental health until the climate around male frustration is alleviated. It doesn't help that NIMBYs routinely stamp out any attempts to found new institutions for broken psyches, not to mention that there's increasing evidence to suggest that the military tosses out unhinged individuals and hides their mental cracks from the data. That guy that shot up the church in Texas and this recent one here in CA are proof of that.
What kind of fucking idiot would want stricter gun laws? Just run a background check and get on with the purchase. People that want gun bans are fucking horrible and stricter gun laws won't help a good damn thing because these insane people will just get the guns illegally anyway so what's the point?
>So after the latest mass shooting in California how do we actually go about enacting stricter gun control through common sense gun laws?
You don't.
Why would people give up their guns now that we've reached banana republic status and democrats are blatantly rigging elections with fraud? Guns are the only defense against this.
Fewer guns being put in to circulation
Law abiding citizens should have the ability to own and carry guns, I will never advocate for an outright gun ban. But the types of weapons commonly available for purchase by civilians is problematic to say the least. I know they are not military spec weapons but they are derived from military weapons and can be easily modified (legally or illegally) to be at that military level again and have no place in society outside of law enforcement or military use.
burn california faggot.
If I build an impermeable wall, and I say it is illegal to go through the wall (like a ghost), will only law-abiding people _not_ be able to go through it?
Of course not. Whether it is illegal or not does not change the fact that the wall is impermeable, and so too, can gun control be, to an extent. Even if not completely bullet-proof, it could still act as a deterrent or otherwise large barrier.
Your source is disingenuous - it is using the fact that there are some exceptions to the Penal Code (such as law enforcement or someone replacing a stolen firearm after it was reported to the police) as a notion that people are able to purchase more than one handgun in CA in under 30 days.
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Even #8 says that the it must go through a licensed firearms dealer, which again, no FFL holder would risk their livelihood in breaking were they to not run any background check.
Step one: buy electron microscope
Step two: use said electron microscope to see the amount of fucks I give
Step three: pick your posion, either you enact legislation that kicks off a civil war or (to me the preferable option) we have a peaceful divorce. You take california, secede from the us, you can live in a gun free paradise, and everyone who likes natural rights and common law can stay in the other 49 states.
I will also add that like suicide, it is not a gun problem, but it is a people problem; a "crazy psychopathic people" problem... that can get guns. Even if you get rid of guns in both cases, you still have unstable people in society, but for now the quickest option is to disarm them first.
>Fewer guns being put in to circulation
why? it's not like you can fire all of your weapons at once.
fuck you that's how
Fewer weapons to be stolen, sold illegally, or misused by unauthorized shooters.
In many ways existing gun control would have prevented many tragedies today, hypothetically, but people f up and people died as a result. If opponents don't want to beef up gun control as it is now, I would at least go towards ensuring that nothing slips under the cracks, like violent pasts or people with PTSD....
Even if something needs to be done on a federal level - and it doesn't - Dems do not care about effective or intelligent policy. All they care about is feels in the end. It's been that way since the 1980s, and it won't change any time soon, especially not now in the post-truth era.
The vast majority of gun homicides are committed with pistols and the pistol bans in Chicago, DC and the UK have all failed miserably to significantly reduce homicide.
>fuck you that's how
actually, there is an answer. i mean besides not letting niggers have guns. and that is no more wars for israel. period. this will lead to fewer soldiers coming back with PTSD like Long.
What if I don't have a car?
>and can be easily modified (legally or illegally) to be at that military level again
you have no idea what you're talking about
there are only a handful of different action types, and full auto is already heavily regulated to the point of being basically non-existent, and have been responsible for exactly 0 deaths in decades. most guns are not "easily modified" back to that status and in the case that you do manage it, i hope you have a backup dog ready to go.
banning semiautos is effectively banning almost all handguns and a significant portion of rifles, which is why they cant just ban the AR15...there's nothing special about it compared to any other semiauto rifle other than "you can put rails on it to slap tacticool garbage on it" and it looks "scary". it doesn't even fire an exceptionally powerful cartridge.
so if you want people to only be able to carry SA revolvers and bolt action .22's, give it a shot. i hope you go fuck yourself in the process.
>sold illegally
so what you're saying is that more laws isn't working because people are just going to break the law.
>not military spec weapons
What exactly does that mean? Here are some examples of actual "military spec weapons" that truly have seen the realities of war, and not civilian mock-ups.
>can be easily modified
Not true either. The machining is not absurdly difficult, but it's more than what most would bother to go through or have the inherent knowledge to carry out. Even if that were the case, the crackdown should then be on videos and info dumps themselves; not on the tool.
>have no place in society
That is an intrinsically naive thing to say. By virtue of our choice in governance, the people should always have adequate means to protect themselves and resist against the status quo. I'm not talking about mad POC going out to shoot random cops, but there should always remain a healthy distrust for people in power and the threat should always loom that if they don't do their jobs, the people will deal with them one way or another. You can't do that with blackpowder rifles and single-shot flintlocks.
Because criminals go to neighboring states where gun laws are more relaxed and then bring them in to Chicago. If we had nationwide gun control laws it would become much less of an issue.
that's not going to work, because democrats do not believe in effective border control.
and how does that do anything about the 300 million guns currently in circulation?
if someone wants one, they will get one. all you're doing is inconveniencing law abiding and someone whose life might be in danger while they wait 10 days.
It would not have an immediate effect but would have a profound long term effect.
>If we had nationwide gun control laws
We do. Every state has background checks. The problem is that the NICS is woefully backed up and has been for decades. It's understaffed, underfunded, and technologically stagnant. No one wants to talk about modernizing it because it's a solution that both protects our existing laws on firearm ownership while simultaneously delivering a suitable answer to the control lobby.
Sensible gun control = allowing citizens to exercise their GOD-GIVEN NATURAL RIGHT to strategic-deterrent Samson-option nukes in every home. Anything short of this is insufficient to check the rise of totalitarianism.
Remember: 2a means 2 nukes per person
That's not true, and the failure of the AWB proves that.
If you don't like guns, don't own one
tens of thousands more people are murdered every year by abortion doctors than gunmen
Fuck of commie
roll
Fun straw man, but that isn't what people are arguing at all.
Yes but I'm talking something on the level of what California has. I know it's an imperfect solution but it is a solution to a big problem in our country and if you don't respond to this post after reading in your mother will die in her sleep tonight.
This thread was b8. You guys are way too easy to fool.
purchasing guns across state lines is trickier than you think.
you would have to have a network of residents of the neighboring state doing the purchasing, and those people could easily get nailed for straw purchasing.
or you could just let the CIA do it
Rolling. Plz no 3
roll
>CZ75B
at least you have decent taste
You activated my trap card, tryhard.
CA shooter was a Marine. Muh training made him deadlier.
On the real though fuck this state. I don't even want to know what the fuck is going to happen now that newcuck is governor and this """"mass shooting"""" just conveniently happened right after the midterms in which the dems gained a lot more power.
>incrementally reducing gun rights one small chunk at a time every time a shooting happens
>not the same as banning guns
Literally nobody is stupid enough to fall for this shit. SC is ours now, 2nd Amendment means what the Founders said it means. You lost. Go away.
You're surprised? Jow Forums falls for b8 every fucking time
no trips no trip no trips no trips