Did people ever open carry guns in LA or San Francisco? (violent crime, house)

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Actually the militia is under the command of the President. So if you're in the militia you take orders from President Obama. He's your Commander in Chief.



Well, that's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying the founders didn't intend for a psycho civilian to be able to get a semiautomatic rifle. The 2nd, in other words, is not a suicide pact. We can say, yes, a person has a right to defend themselves with a weapon. But also, yes, the government has a legitimate interest in public safety and therefore can regulate weapons. We don't have to get silly and say "the Army has RPGs and fully automatic rifles, therefore a guy should be able to walk down the street in New York City with a working RPG." It's not illegal for the government to have reasonable control over weapons available to the general public.

The notion that you can't have any control whatsoever on weapons is complete and utter nonsense. If you agree on ANY restriction that's agreement with gun control. For example, if you think a murderer should not have access to a firearm, that's gun control. You're agreeing with gun control. If you think people should have a background check before purchasing a gun, that's gun control.



Sure it does. All crime correlates with population density. Texas has less gun crime than California simply because there are fewer people. You make the argument that Texas has less gun crime because there is more access to guns than California, but in fact it is just because there are fewer people. Generally the places with more relaxed regulations regarding weapons are places with lower population. When you have a large amount of people in a small place, like in Los Angeles or New York, you want more control over what weapons are out there.



I don't want to go down this line of argument because it will go into abortion etc. Let's keep it a little lighter.

if you are saying crime correlates with population density then guns have no bearing on crime. If you want to reduce crime focus on education and two parent households. You don't want to reduce crime though, you are more worried about the type of guns I have in my safe. Plus ones rights and freedoms do not change based on how close I live to my neighbor.

I have never said every gun should be legal for every person in every situation. No one is arguing this point so you can stop arguing against it.


Do you mean you cannot refute my argument so you are not going to respond. You must want the US to turn into all animals are equal just some are more equal than others.

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

So your argument is that the less than 5% likelihood of being in a mass shooting in an area where people can carry guns is equal to the 95% chance of a mass shooting taking place in a gun free zone.


I don't know why you are so fixated on mass shootings and the relatively few deaths caused by them each year. You are dozens of times more likely to die from exposure than being in a mass shooting. You are 1.5 times more likely to be killed by being struck by lightening than a mass shooting in the US.

Unfortunately, thanks to the modern era of 24/7 news, internet, these mass shooting often end up all over the news, being talked about over and over, every detail dissected including that of the perpetrator/s....
I think this helps spawn more such incidents to occur......by those becoming self radicalized, glued to a computer screen in their spare time, reading & watching propaganda videos on dark websites, or by those with a twisted grudge against one and all who come to see doing something like this their way settle the grudge and have millions hear all about it

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

I'm saying that just because gun ownership and people carrying guns on them being common in a given area does not mean that there cannot be a mass shooting. In other words the "gun free zone" argument is tired and stupid.



Ask the parents of the victims.

No one saying non gun free zones are 100% free of mass shootings. They are just much less lie oy to occur there because people have the ability to protect themselves and fight back.

Being related to someone who was a victim of a crime doesn't give one either the knowledge of a subject of the moral high ground to dictate civil rights policy. Unless you want to turn over policy decisions to the parents of police officers slain in the line of duty.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

if you are saying crime correlates with population density then guns have no bearing on crime.

Guns have no bearing on crime, per se. But they make crimes committed more deadly. What would otherwise be an assault is now a murder.

I have never said every gun should be legal for every person in every situation.

wtf are you talking about? You say that over and over! If anyone suggests any type of gun control you go on your silly rant, "shall not be infringed" as if that makes you a lawyer!

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Again, totally different situation. Out in the middle of nowhere, no one would bat an eye if someone is carrying a firearm. In a big city, where everyone lives closer together, it is reasonable for the government to place more restrictions on it.

And yes, females can learn to defend themselves without a firearm also. I've known many small women who could defeat the average male. I'm a small male and I have used martial arts against many much larger people. It can be done. It works. I've done it.

Also, neither I nor any moderate is calling for banning of all firearms. I support people having semiautomatic PISTOLS. We're talking about banning semiautomatic RIFLES.

Right, you are talking about banning something that is less dangerious than swimming pools. You have no statistical justification for restricting a civil right. You cannot make a rational argument as to why they should be band. All you have is an irrational fear, like someone who won't go into the ocean because they are afraid of shark attacks.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

No one saying non gun free zones are 100% free of mass shootings. They are just much less lie oy to occur there because people have the ability to protect themselves and fight back.

Nope. It usually is stopped by the police or by people who are not carrying firearms, even in areas where gun nuts are common. For example the incident where Gabby Giffords was shot was NOT in a gun free zone. It was in Arizona. The crowd took down the shooter without using a gun. So like I said, the "gun free zone" argument is tired and stupid.

And yours is a very unpopular opinion in California. You're free to move to a place where there are fewer restrictions on weapons, such as Arizona or Texas.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Right, you are talking about banning something that is less dangerious than swimming pools.

Again, please don't handle a firearm, if this is how you view them.

[MarciaMarshaMarcia]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Again, totally different situation. Out in the middle of nowhere, no one would bat an eye if someone is carrying a firearm. In a big city, where everyone lives closer together, it is reasonable for the government to place more restrictions on it.

And yes, females can learn to defend themselves without a firearm also. I've known many small women who could defeat the average male. I'm a small male and I have used martial arts against many much larger people. It can be done. It works. I've done it.

Also, neither I nor any moderate is calling for banning of all firearms. I support people having semiautomatic PISTOLS. We're talking about banning semiautomatic RIFLES.

This is a public forum & the topic is guns, therefore I can add my 2-cents worth. And I do not plan to engage in hand-to-hand combat with a man who tries to physically assault me, which has happened. And yes, there is something that makes a difference in physical strength between genders...it's called testosterone, I don't care HOW little you are as a male!

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Guns have no bearing on crime, per se. But they make crimes committed more deadly. What would otherwise be an assault is now a murder.



wtf are you talking about? You say that over and over! If anyone suggests any type of gun control you go on your silly rant, "shall not be infringed" as if that makes you a lawyer!

Guns don't make criminals more deadly, in Australia when they banned guns crime increased and murder rate increased the only difference is the tools changed.

This state is well past common sense gun regulations like felons or the mentally ill, now we have laws banning purchasing ammo from the Internet, regulating the size of magazines and confiscating them, banning guns unless they are approved for sale by the state, etc. The laws are so convoluted that the police don't even know them, people are getting arrested while posing legal guns because the police cannot even figure out if a gun is legal or illegal. One person was even arrested two separate times while in position of a legal gun.

You think we need more laws in the state but you don't even have a clue about the laws already on the books. You would'lt understand that if I take a gun that was imported from a different country and I put a flash hider on it I would have to change a certain number of foreign made parts with US made parts that are exact duplicates or I would be in violation of 922r. Or that how I can buy one handgun that is black but I cannot buy the same exact handgun when it is painted green, or how I can have to do a 10 day cooling off period every time I buy a gun when I have dozens of guns at home. Not to mention how the current laws make guns functionally more dangerious to the user because it makes it harder to clear jams because people like you think I should not be able to release a magazine easily.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Nope. It usually is stopped by the police or by people who are not carrying firearms, even in areas where gun nuts are common. For example the incident where Gabby Giffords was shot was NOT in a gun free zone. It was in Arizona. The crowd took down the shooter without using a gun. So like I said, the "gun free zone" argument is tired and stupid.

And yours is a very unpopular opinion in California. You're free to move to a place where there are fewer restrictions on weapons, such as Arizona or Texas.

Just like how gays were free to move to states where marriage is legal a few years ago?

Why not read up on all the cases where people have protected themselves with guns
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/

They don't become mass shootings because the killer was shot and killed before they could kill enough people to qualify.

Here are specific examples of just mass shootings that were prevented.
Compiling Cases where concealed handgun permit holders have stopped mass public shootings - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center


I know this doesn't fit into your narrative.


If my argument wasn't valid then why are 95% of mass shooting taking place in gun free zones? Is it just coincidence?