Gun Control in the Socialist Republic of Kahlifornia

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

The Soup Nazi

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 10, 2006
257
0
0
I wasn't sure where the most appropiate place to post this was, but since this is the forum for arms discussions, here we go.

So yes, I have the curse of living in California, what I'd call, "Gun Hell". In case any of you don't know, we're the state whose Liberal senators managed to extend the assault weapon ban of 1994, ban the production and shipment of any guns or ammo with the word "Magnum" in it (Which is hilarious, because everyone knows that no one uses that term except in inaccurate movies and video games), and made the maximum magazine capacity thats legal here 10. (Now my dad used to live in New Jersey, and he said that place had tough gun laws, and the maximum capacity is 15 over there for semiautomatic pistols).

I mean come on, I was wondering if someone could come up with an arguement justifying this. Our senators, the driving force behind gun control are complete hypocrites, because they were the ones who managed to obtain concealed gun licenses before becoming senator. Pro gun control groups have claimed that law enforcement is afraid of a full out civil revolt in major Californian cities if they're armed with modern fire arms. I'd just like to point out that this has never happened in the hundreds of years of US history. Aside from the fact that they're spitting in the face of the 2nd Amendment, its the paternalistic view that our senators have towards all citizens that make me lose faith in our government.

I'm supposedly a criminal for living in California, but in reality, I enjoy video games that contain violence, I'm often exposed to violent media, and not ONCE have I habored thoughts of using a firearm (I'm only 15, hopefully the Democratic monopoly on California will have expired by the time I'm old enough to legally purchase handguns for myself) against another law abiding citizen. What I do intend to do with firearms are: Collect them, fire them for recreational purposes, use them for hunting, and if need be, for the defense of myself and any future family I may have. Is that so unreasonable? But I guess if you look at Stalin, he took away all the guns, look how great the USSR turned out to be.
 

[-project.rattus-]

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,036
371
0
39
Austria
www.youtube.com
I personally never had the urge to own a firearm. Why would you "need" anything other than a sporting or hunting rifle? And I fail to see the use for automatic guns (or even semi atomatic, for that matter) for both purposes...

And I think the correlation you drew from gun restrictions of Stalin to the downfall of the USSR is quite far fetched.
 

MkH^

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 11, 2006
500
0
0
Finland
I think the limitations withing magazine capacity and caliber are just hypocritic. Automatic weapons? Fun as hell, but not something I'd like the people who shouldn't get their hands on which, get their hands on.

Now, what I find really quite retarted is the 2nd amendment itself. I don't think everyone should have the right to bear arms (haha, reminded me of a hilarious bit in the Family Guy). If you don't have anything to use the gun for, why would you need a gun? That's just dangerous.

In Finland you can get everything from .500 S&Ws to folding-stock Kalashnikovs, but you need a reason, be it a hobby or profession. Law enforcement, practical shooting, hunting or precision shooting. Then again, you can't buy a semi-automatic assault rifle for 25m pistol shooting. Also, obviously self defense is not a valid reason. Of course then, you need to be a member of a shooting- or hunting-club, or in the law enforcement forces to prove the need to buy a gun. This does not limit the number of legal arms, but it certainly limits who are they owned by.

Guns are fun, but owning one shouldn't be a right, but a privilege.
 
Last edited:

necropimp

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 27, 2006
590
1
0
MkH^ said:
Now, what I find really quite retarted is the 2nd amendment itself. I don't think everyone should have the right to bear arms (haha, reminded me of a hilarious bit in the Family Guy). If you don't have anything to use the gun for, why would you need a gun? That's just dangerous.

would you rather have it and not need it or need it and not have it?
 

MkH^

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 11, 2006
500
0
0
Finland
I would rather have the next man not have one. I still don't think guns should be used for self defense. I can see though that if they were available to practically anyone, they would actually have to be used for it. Unless you are a mob boss or something, I can hardly see anyone putting a price for your head, which is one of the few occasions when a gun might come handy.
 

DingBat

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
751
0
0
The Soup Nazi said:
I wasn't sure where the most appropiate place to post this was, but since this is the forum for arms discussions, here we go.

So yes, I have the curse of living in California, what I'd call, "Gun Hell". In case any of you don't know, we're the state whose Liberal senators managed to extend the assault weapon ban of 1994, ban the production and shipment of any guns or ammo with the word "Magnum" in it (Which is hilarious, because everyone knows that no one uses that term except in inaccurate movies and video games), and made the maximum magazine capacity thats legal here 10. (Now my dad used to live in New Jersey, and he said that place had tough gun laws, and the maximum capacity is 15 over there for semiautomatic pistols).

I mean come on, I was wondering if someone could come up with an arguement justifying this. Our senators, the driving force behind gun control are complete hypocrites, because they were the ones who managed to obtain concealed gun licenses before becoming senator. Pro gun control groups have claimed that law enforcement is afraid of a full out civil revolt in major Californian cities if they're armed with modern fire arms. I'd just like to point out that this has never happened in the hundreds of years of US history. Aside from the fact that they're spitting in the face of the 2nd Amendment, its the paternalistic view that our senators have towards all citizens that make me lose faith in our government.

I'm supposedly a criminal for living in California, but in reality, I enjoy video games that contain violence, I'm often exposed to violent media, and not ONCE have I habored thoughts of using a firearm (I'm only 15, hopefully the Democratic monopoly on California will have expired by the time I'm old enough to legally purchase handguns for myself) against another law abiding citizen. What I do intend to do with firearms are: Collect them, fire them for recreational purposes, use them for hunting, and if need be, for the defense of myself and any future family I may have. Is that so unreasonable? But I guess if you look at Stalin, he took away all the guns, look how great the USSR turned out to be.

Heh, it's pretty funny how your environment affects your viewpoint, isn't it?

I mean, compared to Canada, your concept of gun control is positively liberal.

I think the people who support access to guns need to come up with a better way of expressing themselves. Actually, anyone who disagrees with the current laws in their state/province/group of shacks could stand to cool off a bit. If you don't like the law, try to change it. If you don't want to be bothered trying to change the law, then move to a state that allows you to buy guns freely.

The 2nd ammendment argument is growing a bit tiresome too, I think. Everyone who has read it knows it can be interpreted many different ways so simply trotting it out as de facto proof that God intended man to own as many guns as possible just doesn't cut it.

I would really like both sides of the gun control debate in the U.S. to begin to try to figure out just why the U.S. has so many gun deaths each year. Talk about it. Why does it happen? What is special about the U.S. that causes this to occur? If you really truly believe that access to guns has no bearing on this statistic then it should be easy to prove and, once you prove it, gun control ceases to have any legitimate argument. Try that instead of resorting to the poor old 2nd ammendment.

As for your parting shot: Look at Canada. We took away all the guns and look how great we turned out to be. :)

P.S. Before you flame on, I'm not arguing one side or the other here. I've gone to many shooting ranges here in Canada and used to be pretty decent with a pistol. I know people who hunt regularly. You can get guns here, if you really want to. There's just a different attitude about it.
 

Tanis

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2006
211
0
0
DingBat said:
As for your parting shot: Look at Canada. We took away all the guns and look how great we turned out to be.

Umm... hoping you meant that in a joking fashion, cause if Canada took away all the guns, you'll have to explain the dozen or so in my gun safe...

Either way, yes, the attitude up here is different, because we don't have the right to bear arms.

Sure, there are a lot of laws to do with firearms in Canada that gun owners like myself don't understand, but there's a few that we don't mind. Licencing, for instance. You want to own a gun, you go through a course, pass a test, undergo a background check, and are given a licence. Non-restricted for long rifles and shotguns, Restricted for pistols and anything with a short barrel length, as well as a few guns that the goverment calls, "scary" due to looks, or whatever. No big deal, it's a very simple test that keeps legal guns out of the hands of people who are genuinely too stupid to own them.

Now if the government would stop blaming legal gun owners for the criminal acts of thugs who use and own illegal guns, I'd be much happier. :p
 

SimFreak

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 23, 2005
263
3
0
Chino, CA.
If you are 15, and this is your work; it is bloody impressive job. Majority of people under 18 are not even familiar with punctuations or location of
 

DingBat

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
751
0
0
SimFreak said:
[FONT=&quot]And I love this suggestion to a 15 years old; "go move to another state". LOL [/FONT]

Why are you laughing?

When presented with a problem there are obviously 3 responses:

1. Do something about it.
2. Suck it up.
3. Move somewhere else.

If 1 and 3 aren't possible, perhaps you should start thinking about #2.
 

DingBat

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
751
0
0
Tanis said:
Umm... hoping you meant that in a joking fashion, cause if Canada took away all the guns, you'll have to explain the dozen or so in my gun safe...

Of course. I already stated that I used to go to gun clubs for target shooting all the time in my youth.

The point was, from an american NRA members point of view, we HAVE taken away all the guns. Perspective is everything, as I said.
 

Musketeer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
389
0
0
DingBat said:
The 2nd ammendment argument is growing a bit tiresome too, I think. Everyone who has read it knows it can be interpreted many different ways so simply trotting it out as de facto proof that God intended man to own as many guns as possible just doesn't cut it.

...

If you really truly believe that access to guns has no bearing on this statistic then it should be easy to prove and, once you prove it, gun control ceases to have any legitimate argument. ...

As for your parting shot: Look at Canada. We took away all the guns and look how great we turned out to be. :)

First the reason to own guns is protection from enemies foreign and domestic. As somebody who has actually used a legally carried concealed hadngun to defend his life in a carjacking attempt I can tell you they most certainly have a place in society.

I can understand how th 2A argument may be tireing one for whom it does not apply. Fortunately the Amendments in the US Constittution are there regardless of what some people may think. We haven't had to worry about troops being quarterred in our homes recently so should we do away with that one?

There really is only one way to read the 2A properly and that is in the context of how and why it was written as well as what the words used exactly meant at the time. The Constitution is a CONTRACT and while the meanings of words may change over the years in any legal contract the meanings as they aply to the contract are set in stone to what they were when it was written.

Read the following http://www.saf.org/journal/4_Schulman.html


As far as access to firearms please go to Switzerland where just about every man between 18 and 42 (many older) has a fully automatic (NOT semi, FULLY) in his home. Strangely their amount of actual fireams deaths are very low.

You can also look at Israel with regards to normal criminal activity, since I think we can state that organized terrorist activity is beyond the scope of gun control. Those numbers are also very low yet the amount of handguns and fully automatic weapons available to legal citizens is startling. The Jews of Isreal also understand the importance of being able to protect themselves because as a group they learned it is very likely nobody else will do so. One of the first moves of the Nazis was to confiscate firearms and institute mandatory gun control.

If things are so good in Canada why were there 8 gang killings over the weekend?

The problems with crime are not gun control problems but PEOPLE problems. Flame away but widespread desensitization to violence amongst our young has had a detrimental effect on more than a generation. In addition in the USA there has been a steady decrease in reinforcing individual responsibility and accountability. The amount of killings because someone has disrespected another is staggering.

For total gun control please look to the UK. They banned them all and they now lead the western world in violent crime. Gun crime has also increased in the UK and knife crime has gone through the roof. It has reached the point where just recently parliment was talking about a ban on all pointy knives, including chef's knives since they served no "usefull purpose."

There will always be those who prey upon others. It is sad but a truth of the world. At least if the vicitim can own a gun they can even their chances against their attackers. Otherwise we are back to who has the biggest biceps and largest club or knife. The handgun is what allows the physically weak to resist the strong aggresor.

Finally you may note that the numbers for violent crime in the USA have gone down steadily for years now yet the ability to carry concealed handguns has increased dramatically across the USA. At last count 37 (38 by Jan 07 I believe) states are SHALL ISSUE. This means a citizen with a clean record must be given a permit to carry a concealed handgun if they apply. Most other states are MAY issue, meaning there is discrection (read discrimination) that the authorities show in who gets a permit. In LA and NYC that means movie stars and the rich get permits while the little people are left out while at the same time a permit in another part of the state is far easier to get. Only 4 states have no legal way to carry a concealed handgun. Strangely crime goes down in every state where carry permits become shall issue and the rate of crime for permit holders is lower than almost any other group.

www.packing.org
 

SimFreak

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 23, 2005
263
3
0
Chino, CA.
DingBat said:
Why are you laughing?

When presented with a problem there are obviously 3 responses:

1. Do something about it.
2. Suck it up.
3. Move somewhere else.

If 1 and 3 aren't possible, perhaps you should start thinking about #2.


[FONT=&quot]Well
 

Musketeer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
389
0
0
Tanis said:
No big deal, it's a very simple test that keeps legal guns out of the hands of people who are genuinely too stupid to own them.

Now if the government would stop blaming legal gun owners for the criminal acts of thugs who use and own illegal guns, I'd be much happier. :p

That is just it. It is NOT the legal gun owners who are the problem.

Registration is also WRONG.

In Louisianna the police ILLEGLALY, and that was the Federal Court who said so not just me, detained legal citizens, cuffed them, searched their homes, and confiscated their firearms. They then left them there with no protection, no power and night falling with looters and other criminals about. REGISTRATION LISTS allow the government to do just what they did, ILLEGALLY confiscate firearms.
 

DingBat

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
751
0
0
Musketeer said:
There really is only one way to read the 2A properly and that is in the context of how and why it was written as well as what the words used exactly meant at the time.

Which is open to all sorts of interpretation, as made obvious by the fact that we're having this debate. If everyone in the US agreed on the meaning of the 2A, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
http://www.saf.org/journal/4_Schulman.html
If things are so good in Canada why were there 8 gang killings over the weekend?

Oh please, don't even go there. The original poster tried to make a point that no guns == crappy country. I merely provided a counterpoint. Had someone tried to say "ton's o' guns == crappy country" I would then have used Switzerland as an example, okay?

Do you really want to go toe to toe over gun death statistics? I thought not.

The problems with crime are not gun control problems but PEOPLE problems. Flame away but widespread desensitization to violence amongst our young has had a detrimental effect on more than a generation. In addition in the USA there has been a steady decrease in reinforcing individual responsibility and accountability. The amount of killings because someone has disrespected another is staggering.

Now this is an interesting discussion and one I aluded to earlier. WHY are there such people problems in the U.S? It doesn't appear to be present in other countries with stricter gun control such as Canada or Australia, so what's the difference?

Is "desensitization" really an argument? Canadians watch exactly the same TV as americans. We go to the same movies. Hell, we want fighting in hockey. And yet we don't kill each other with guns at the same rate as americans. I'm not saying canadians are better, but clearly if you're going to argue that the social environment is the cause of this violence, you need to explain why it stops at the 49th parallel.

Finally you may note that the numbers for violent crime in the USA have gone down steadily for years now yet the ability to carry concealed handguns has increased dramatically across the USA. At last count 37 (38 by Jan 07 I believe) states are SHALL ISSUE. This means a citizen with a clean record must be given a permit to carry a concealed handgun if they apply. Most other states are MAY issue, meaning there is discrection (read discrimination) that the authorities show in who gets a permit. In LA and NYC that means movie stars and the rich get permits while the little people are left out while at the same time a permit in another part of the state is far easier to get. Only 4 states have no legal way to carry a concealed handgun. Strangely crime goes down in every state where carry permits become shall issue and the rate of crime for permit holders is lower than almost any other group.

Well, if you believe Freakonomics, the reason for the decline in violent crime in the US is Roe vs Wade. Access to abortion has allowed women in disadvantaged social situations to opt not to have children. Children that were more at risk to fall through the cracks and end up in the world of crime. Turns out women are pretty good judges of when they can and can't support a child.
 

Mikhail Kalashnikov

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2006
173
0
0
The Soup Nazi said:
I wasn't sure where the most appropiate place to post this was, but since this is the forum for arms discussions, here we go.

So yes, I have the curse of living in California, what I'd call, "Gun Hell". In case any of you don't know, we're the state whose Liberal senators managed to extend the assault weapon ban of 1994, ban the production and shipment of any guns or ammo with the word "Magnum" in it (Which is hilarious, because everyone knows that no one uses that term except in inaccurate movies and video games), and made the maximum magazine capacity thats legal here 10. (Now my dad used to live in New Jersey, and he said that place had tough gun laws, and the maximum capacity is 15 over there for semiautomatic pistols).

I mean come on, I was wondering if someone could come up with an arguement justifying this. Our senators, the driving force behind gun control are complete hypocrites, because they were the ones who managed to obtain concealed gun licenses before becoming senator. Pro gun control groups have claimed that law enforcement is afraid of a full out civil revolt in major Californian cities if they're armed with modern fire arms. I'd just like to point out that this has never happened in the hundreds of years of US history. Aside from the fact that they're spitting in the face of the 2nd Amendment, its the paternalistic view that our senators have towards all citizens that make me lose faith in our government.

I'm supposedly a criminal for living in California, but in reality, I enjoy video games that contain violence, I'm often exposed to violent media, and not ONCE have I habored thoughts of using a firearm (I'm only 15, hopefully the Democratic monopoly on California will have expired by the time I'm old enough to legally purchase handguns for myself) against another law abiding citizen. What I do intend to do with firearms are: Collect them, fire them for recreational purposes, use them for hunting, and if need be, for the defense of myself and any future family I may have. Is that so unreasonable? But I guess if you look at Stalin, he took away all the guns, look how great the USSR turned out to be.

Are you talking about the same california that has the somewhat well sized population of gangbanging drug dealing punks who kill each other with guns everyday because of some **** some vato was saying about your homey's girl?
The allowance of guns to people should be well monitored and stuff, because otherwise a bunch of psychopaths and crazy people get their hands on stuff that they can use for killing sprees.(yeah,i know thatjust about every state in the union has gangs and driveby shootings, but considering california has LA,Frisco, and other big cities, they get alot more of that stuff than nebraska)
 

[-project.rattus-]

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,036
371
0
39
Austria
www.youtube.com
Musketeer said:
As far as access to firearms please go to Switzerland where just about every man between 18 and 42 (many older) has a fully automatic (NOT semi, FULLY) in his home. Strangely their amount of actual fireams deaths are very low.

I might add that everyone who has a fully automated handgun is trained the proper way to handle it. They are not sold in Walmarts to random, but IIRC, they get it when they serve their obligatory time in the swiss army, and thus know that an automatic weapon is no toy to play around with.

And concerning "protection": I bet a pepperspray or another non-lethal weapon does the very same thing, without the risk of killing yourself, someone other, or losing beloved ones in an accident.

Oh, and the "foreign enemies" part is a very nice anarchronism, just like the 2nd amendment... which was added when the threat of a british invasion (King George?) was a very real one... But please tell me one single other occasion where privately owned guns fended off such a "foreign enemy"...
 

MkH^

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 11, 2006
500
0
0
Finland
A trained soldier indeed has a bit more experience what comes to gun handling than some soccer mom with a gun she recently bought from some corner store.
 

Musketeer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
389
0
0
I could fill the board with quotes from the founding fathers as to WHY people should own guns for protection not only from foreign enemies but also their own government and criminals. George Washington himself referred to the importance of the handgun for personal defense.

Als the reason for the debate on the 2A is not because people interpret it differently according to the meanings of the words at the time it was written. The problem is people who insist on interpretting it according to the changing meanings of words. For instance, militia at the time was every able bodied male and it was an un-uniformed gathering of locals for defense against everything from enemy soldiers to criminals. Today anti gun proponents argue milita = National Guard, even though it was created long after the 2A was ratified.

One of the biggest issues in Constitutional Law today is how the words are interpretted. With the meanings of today or when they were written. The only coorect way, and yes I am right on that, is to interpret it with the word meanigns at the time. If you do not do it that way then nothing is gaurenteed by the Constitution. Those who cannot get laws and ammendments passed saying what they want though have depended on an activist court to redefine words to suit their views. It is a disaster that constantly explodes in our faces when confronted with logic.

I advocate every person getting some form of training, but have seen many soldiers who couldn't use a handgun worth a damn and had no understanding of the legalities surrounding the use of force. Many of the women I know who shoot though have a better understanding of it.

Canada does not have the problems of the USA, it also does not have the population density in the areas where our crime is the worst. I also think that Canada may be a little behind the USA in our personal moral decline into self indulgence and importance. Give it time though and you may catch up...

Look at DC where guns are banned entirely, yet it regularly leads the nation in murders (with illegal guns heavens to Betsy!). Nobody came back on my comments on the UK which is now the most dangerous place in the Western World for street crime.

Nothing I say here will change the minds of many though. All I can say is the CDC itself has come out and admitted that gun laws have had no effect on gun deaths and crime. Criminals will have guns, we can't change that. They will not all dissapear with the flick of a switch, even if we decided to do so. Rather than getting behind the next piece of anti gun legislation that only penalizes those of us following the very difficult rules at present how about advocating the government fully enforce the laws on the books already. Politicians through anti gun legislation around for free press time and it always makes them look good even though it does nothing. Never do they stand by and say no more legislation is needed when it may cost them the spotlight.

The number one way to change your view is to survive a criminal encounter. I have. I hope none of you ever have to and if you do find yourself in one I hope you find your way out.

PS Peppergas is an excellent non-lethal alternative for certain situations and I carry one on me in addition to my gun. It is limited in range and effectiveness though. If OC gas could do everything a gun could do the cops would only carry OC. If the assailant can get their hands on you their being blind will not help much if they are larger and intend you serious harm. I carry it and have used it on an attacking dog. I also depend on its presence for those situation where force may be needed but not necessarily deadly force. If your only tool in the toolbox is a hammer you approach every problem like it is a nail.