California's new ammunition law takes effect July 1st (tax, shop)

[ysr_racer]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

My fellow patriots who died protecting our right to vote. I served as well.

Regardless, if you don't think EVERY firearm purchase should be subject to a Background Check, you are in a very, very small minority. Again:

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ecks-all-gun-/

And those background checks need to get better. We have laws in California to expedite the process if someone is suspected of being a psycho, but we need to figure out how to get better at identifying the guys who do these mass shootings and preventing them from having firearms.

Well comrade, you're certainly living in the right state for your beliefs.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by ysr_racer

Well comrade, you're certainly living in the right state for your beliefs.

You're suggesting 95% of all registered voters in the USA are communists? I am far from that. I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger both times, and I voted for Meg Whitman as governor of California rather than Jerry Brown.

I didn't say we should deny people the right to keep and bear arms. I said that if someone is a violent felon they are not a responsible firearm owner and should not be allowed to own one!!! To implement that, you have to perform a background check on everyone who wants to purchase a firearm.

And we have to figure out how to determine who is going to be a mass shooter psycho and get them flagged so they can't buy a firearm.

[ysr_racer]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

.

And we have to figure out how to determine who is going to be a mass shooter psycho and get them flagged so they can't buy a firearm.

As soon as you have that figured out, maybe you can tell me next week's lottery numbers?

Bad people always find a way to do bad things. Laws don't stop people from doing anything, they punish you afterwards.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by ysr_racer

Bad people always find a way to do bad things. Laws don't stop people from doing anything, they punish you afterwards.

That's not true, dude. Prior to 9/11, for example, it was much easier to force your way into an aircraft cockpit. What changed? Laws requiring fortification of the door.

Maybe there should be a psych test as well as a background check. The danger would be that the psych test could be used for political reasons (maybe somebody puts a question in there, did you vote for Trump, and if you say yes, you're not allowed to get a weapon)....but we have to figure out a way to flag these people.

But these mass shooters are not stealing the weapons. They're buying them legally. So a big part of it is improving that process.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

That's not true, dude. Prior to 9/11, for example, it was much easier to force your way into an aircraft cockpit. What changed? Laws requiring fortification of the door.

Maybe there should be a psych test as well as a background check. The danger would be that the psych test could be used for political reasons (maybe somebody puts a question in there, did you vote for Trump, and if you say yes, you're not allowed to get a weapon)....but we have to figure out a way to flag these people.

But these mass shooters are not stealing the weapons. They're buying them legally. So a big part of it is improving that process.

You already have background checks to get a gun. You can’t know if years down the road if someone is going to change. It’s not just guns. The Santa Barbara shooting the first 3 people killed were by knife. Why aren’t you asking for a background check on a set of kitchen utensils? Elliot shot and killed two people but was also using his car to hit or run over people. Why aren’t you asking for stricter laws about people owning cars?

The background check never stopped the San Bernardino shooting where 14 people died because the shooters got the guns from someone else who the checks never flagged.

The problem is with so many people the sheer number means something is bound to happen.
Nothing wrong with looking for a better way, but to get a discussion going people need to have their facts straight. You keep arguing yet you don’t even understand what the gun show loophole is and keep referring to it. That’s why you get no traction. No one wants to talk to people who don’t even understand the issues.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by veritased

Yes I have been to the Garlic festival, multiple times. Yes, many yahoo's, because it's California.
Not only Yahoo Inc there, but lots of yahoos, I agree.
Regarding CCW types, I don't know why you assume they are all a bunch of untrained yahoo's.
Alot of people who carry get training, as any of us who train regularly see. Maybe you have not trained in a formal program, and so don't understand the volume and variety of training programs even there in the Bay area of all places.

That being said, yes, there is a risk of somebody with zero training who misses a shooter entirely. So which risk do you want?
A: no guns on anyone except the shooter and the nearest law enforcement
B: guns on shooter, nearest LEO, and some unknown number of civilians with unknown skill willing to engage with their carry weapon

I take option B. You?

Regarding weaponless defense, Aikido is a nice elegant sport, but outside the dojo and Steven Seagall movies, it's very dangerous to let that give you confidence to take on an attacker. I hope you both never have to find out if it's effective or not. Once you really get into (even controlled) fights or street conflict situations, you realize real quick how random stuff gets out there. It's not Hollywood, [expletive deleted] gets real very fast. But if you are backed into a corner, and can't escape, a weapon with training and practice is infinitely better than the dojo skills (hey dude, come at me just like this so I can flip you onto the ground, OK?)

I'm sure you are an expert on Aikido because after all, you are on every single subject in the universe and if anyone doubts that, all they have to do is ask you

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

And we have to figure out how to determine who is going to be a mass shooter psycho and get them flagged so they can't buy a firearm.

I also just watched minority report with Tom cruise.

[ysr_racer]

The reason gun owners don't want any more gun laws is, we've already got thousands of them on the books and they don't stop bad people from doing bad things.

At some point in time, one of our democratic leaders will say, these laws aren't working, let's just confiscate all the guns. But how will we know who has guns?

Easy, we've been keeping track of them for years.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I'm sure you are an expert on Aikido because after all, you are on every single subject in the universe and if anyone doubts that, all they have to do is ask you

Multiple SME's about everything in the same room. What could possibly go wrong.

When I retire I'm cutting the cord. There are better things to do than argue over the internet.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

You already have background checks to get a gun. You can’t know if years down the road if someone is going to change.

Yes, I agree with the NRA that's a mental health issue, in terms of mass shootings, not a gun issue. We have to get better at detecting people who are going to do this, flag them in NICS and probably take away any guns they already have.

Why aren’t you asking for a background check on a set of kitchen utensils?

Kitchen knives are not designed to employ deadly force against an enemy. Plus it takes more skill to kill someone with a knife, and unless you're Dan Inosanto, you're not going to kill dozens of people in a few minutes using a knife. Guns are not harmless tools. Stop with the stupidity. Professionals refer to them as WEAPONS. I would know. Firearms were part of my job when I was in the USN. I handled them all the time.

Same with torpedoes. We don't say "conn, torpedo room, harmless tool akin to a tape measure is running hot straight and normal"....we say "conn, torpedo room, THE WEAPON is running hot straight and normal".

A FIREARM IS A WEAPON. That's not a moral judgement. It is a statement of fact. If I thought it was evil to carry guns I would think of myself as evil too! I used to carry a gun all the time! I am simply stating a FACT.

I hate to break it to you aslowdodge but many centrist Democrats like myself served in the military and carried firearms. Thank God I never had to kill anyone with one. But I did carry them and I have shot them and loaded them and cleaned them, and I'm trained in tactics as well. I used to stand up there topside with a loaded assault rifle -- a real one, fully automatic, 800 rounds per minute, and yes I am trained in using it in full auto -- and I still support (reasonable) gun control. I do not want to take away the 2nd amendment or ban all firearms. I'm a moderate. But I do think we have a continual battle we have to wage to try to prevent more and more of these mass shootings.

And again....A FIREARM IS A WEAPON. It's not a tool, it's not a toy, it's not a hobby, it's not that cool stuff you do on weekends to make yourself feel tough even though someone who knows how to fight could still close distance disarm you and take you down. It's a weapon. Professionals refer to it as a weapon and respect that it is a weapon. I understand that some people have a hobby involving WEAPONS but that doesn't change the fact that it is a WEAPON. Not a "tool". It is a WEAPON.

Why don't you see martial artists whose arts employ swords referring to them as tools? Because that would be stupid. A katana is a weapon. Just like an M16A3 is a weapon.

The background check never stopped the San Bernardino shooting where 14 people died because the shooters got the guns from someone else who the checks never flagged.

Indeed, this has to be addressed as well, I agree. It would require, gasp!, a new law.

The problem is with so many people the sheer number means something is bound to happen.

Eh. Most households have firearms in Switzerland and they don't have this issue. Of course, they aren't allowed to have ammunition at home (the government would issue it in time of war).

The mass shooting issue is one of mental health. It's gun control, yes, but gun control specifically in terms of keeping them away from psychos.

You keep arguing yet you don’t even understand what the gun show loophole is and keep referring to it.

The gun show loophole means you can go to a gun show and sell weapons without going through an FFL background check.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

It's stupid and needs to be eliminated.

No one wants to talk to people who don’t even understand the issues.

Now you know how I feel. And the vast majority in California agrees with me, so I get lots of traction. I don't care if some redneck living in Trump land disagrees with me.