+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 54
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Many drivers also like shooting sports...

  1. #21
    Senior Member robburgoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,008
    Liked
    1495 times

    Default

    I for one feel that limiting magazine size will make a big difference in the next mass shooting. 5 shots less before a reload that takes 0.3 seconds will save many lives in the mass shootings that threaten me on a daily basis.



    Or you know I could just cross one less street and be safer that way.
    Stuntman likes this.

  2. #22
    Not Certified Slow SDSUsnowboards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    1,835
    Liked
    817 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuntman View Post
    ...so what's the point of this law?
    That is the good question. Are California laws misguided but well-intentioned attempts to increase public safety within the parameters set forth by the Constitution? Or, are they deliberate attempts to pass laws contrary to the Constitution, born from a lack of respect for that law? If so, to what end? Total disarmament of the civilian population?

    I think it is apparent that the sum of California's laws concerning the carry of handguns is unconstitutional, as challenged in re Peruta. The refusal of the 9th circuit court to answer the issues raised in that case evidences this assertion.
    It think it is unquestionable that the sum of California's laws pertaining to the acquisition of handguns and rifles is unconstitutional, beginning January 1, 2017, by virtue of the fact that the majority of handguns and rifles available on the world market are not legal for purchase in CA.

    The two facts above lead me to believe that the CA legislature holds Federal law to be mere guideline. It may be asking too much, if we ask politicians to obey the law. That's why I'm getting the hell out of CA. I want to be law abiding, therefore, I must move to where the laws are such that I can consent to them.
    2001 MR2-Eleven
    Experience Points: 21
    Youtube Channel.

  3. #23
    Philosoraptor LagunaBlueS2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Glendale, California, United States
    Posts
    243
    Liked
    44 times

    Default

    I have a simple solution... Rather than dumping half-baked policy on top of existing half-baked policy, ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS.

    The purpose of these new laws is to disarm law abiding citizens, and create a new class of felons overnight with the swipe of a pen. If you own a gun, you are a threat. Again, these are otherwise law abiding people.

    The people who write these laws have no actual knowledge or understanding of how firearms work and the policy is reflective. This is akin to a bunch of politicians drafting educational policy with no knowledge or practical classroom experience, and then blaming teachers for the failure of their poorly laid out policy.
    Last edited by LagunaBlueS2k; 09-06-2016 at 11:16 AM.
    Robert Hall
    #57 Pacific Auto Recycling Center Corvette
    Pacific Auto Recycling Center

  4. #24
    "Shoe"
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,856
    Liked
    590 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robburgoon View Post
    I for one feel that limiting magazine size will make a big difference in the next mass shooting. 5 shots less before a reload that takes 0.3 seconds will save many lives in the mass shootings that threaten me on a daily basis.

    Or you know I could just cross one less street and be safer that way.
    I agree, because when all of the law-abiding citizens have no guns, the criminals will also give up their guns and won't illegally obtain illegal rifles, magazines, etc...

    But then again we also allow illegal aliens and people on welfare to vote for people and laws that will give them more...

  5. #25
    Chest hair required Olitho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,236
    Liked
    2343 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ucfbrett View Post
    I know slippery slope is a fallacious argument, but all these laws and initiatives make me wonder what's next.
    Why is a slippery slope fallacious. It is a very real threat. If a political group can't manage to outlaw something with direct sweeping action, you can accomplish the same thing over time with ever encroaching legislation. What you get is a constructive ban by making so many laws that are restrictive.

    That is why the NRA and pro-abortion advocates are so zealous in opposing any laws. It is because they see the threat over the long-term horizon.
    To the right of The Sheriff. Isn't everyone?

  6. #26
    Not Certified Slow SDSUsnowboards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    1,835
    Liked
    817 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olitho View Post
    Why is a slippery slope fallacious. It is a very real threat. If a political group can't manage to outlaw something with direct sweeping action, you can accomplish the same thing over time with ever encroaching legislation. What you get is a constructive ban by making so many laws that are restrictive.

    That is why the NRA and pro-abortion advocates are so zealous in opposing any laws. It is because they see the threat over the long-term horizon.
    Slippery slope is a fallacy if the mere possibility of a slippery slope is used to evidence the existence of said slippery slope.

    It is not a fallacy to suggest there is a slippery slope when other evidence shows there is, in fact, a slippery slope. I believe California's historical legislative history concerning firearms may serve as sufficient evidence to show a slippery slope exists.
    2001 MR2-Eleven
    Experience Points: 21
    Youtube Channel.

  7. #27
    Chest hair required Olitho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,236
    Liked
    2343 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LagunaBlueS2k View Post
    The people who write these laws have no actual knowledge or understanding of how firearms work and the policy is reflective. This is akin to a bunch of politicians drafting educational policy with no knowledge or practical classroom experience, and then blaming teachers for the failure of their poorly laid out policy.
    You are giving them way to much credit. Some do know well about firearms while others do not in our legislature. It does not really matter to them. They are pursuing an agenda for their donors and constituents who want a ban on firearms or to at least limit them to the greatest extent that they can. This is purely ideological and not an educational issue.
    bawareca likes this.
    To the right of The Sheriff. Isn't everyone?

  8. #28
    "Shoe"
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,856
    Liked
    590 times

    Default

    Every day I see the movie "Idiocracy" more as a prophecy than just a funny movie.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    328
    Liked
    223 times

    Default

    The challenge with gun control (pro or con) are circular conversations with no substantive discussion or even problem statement. The problem has always been a question of access and public safety. But few sides are willing to agree on the details - who and what - and there are probably some who don’t acknowledge there is even a problem.

    Until society can find common ground on how to legislate access that reasonably protects the public, blanket reforms will continue to get on the ballot. The all-or-nothing polarizing approaches presented by both sides doesn’t lend itself to compromise. It can’t be all, and it can’t be nothing. I don’t know if gun control advocates truly understand the legislative pain points for law abiding and safe gun enthusiasts in the solutions presented (and many may not care at this point). On the flip side, advocacy groups like the NRA seem unwilling to come to the table to discuss practical solutions. As a result, the different use cases of home owners seeking protection, sportsman, and hunters etc. are clouded into singular blanket legislative proposals that are unpopular with all types of gun owners and probably will have pain points for each.

    If one side says we have to do something and the other says do nothing, that’s not the end of it. Eventually public safety advocates will get enough people in agreement that “enough is enough”. Too many people are scared. Maybe this is that time. We’ll find out in November. And if not then, the next ballot.

    My two cents: Some version of ammo regulation may present some more palatable compromises, especially with gun ownership proponents and those concerned with property seizure. And with new technological advances complicating solutions (e.g. 3d printing), I expect solutions concerning ammo to gain speed nationally. There is precedence there.

  10. #30
    Philosoraptor LagunaBlueS2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Glendale, California, United States
    Posts
    243
    Liked
    44 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olitho View Post
    You are giving them way to much credit. Some do know well about firearms while others do not in our legislature. It does not really matter to them. They are pursuing an agenda for their donors and constituents who want a ban on firearms or to at least limit them to the greatest extent that they can. This is purely ideological and not an educational issue.
    I don't disagree with you, but...
    robburgoon likes this.
    Robert Hall
    #57 Pacific Auto Recycling Center Corvette
    Pacific Auto Recycling Center

  11. #31
    "Shoe"
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,856
    Liked
    590 times

    Default

    ^wow...

    So on the 3D printing note.. we are starting to be able to print metals relatively affordably. People are already printing AR lowers and making functional rifles out of them. So how are any of these laws going to prevent criminals from making their own guns? How are these laws suppose to take guns away from criminals?

    There are millions of guns out there, unless you do a nationwide purge, you're not going to get rid of them. That would cause a revolt and criminals still wouldn't turn their guns over anyway.

    I think our society as a whole does not have the same level of knowledge or exposure to firearms as the Swiss, and I think we also have a really messed up (mentally) society compared to the Swiss.. I'm not sure there is any answer.

  12. #32
    Administrator ucfbrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ventura, Calif.
    Posts
    5,639
    Liked
    2356 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olitho View Post
    Why is a slippery slope fallacious. It is a very real threat. If a political group can't manage to outlaw something with direct sweeping action, you can accomplish the same thing over time with ever encroaching legislation. What you get is a constructive ban by making so many laws that are restrictive.

    That is why the NRA and pro-abortion advocates are so zealous in opposing any laws. It is because they see the threat over the long-term horizon.

    In addition to a host of other fallacies, slippery slope is inadmissible in court and generally unaccepted in persuasion theory and debating in general. The following is from an archive of a list of fallacious arguments, such as straw man, mistaking correlation for cause, argument of repetition, etc.

    So, purely as an argument, slippery slope is not reliable. Like I said, the current flurry of firearm legislation in California makes me wonder what comes next.

    "The fallacy here is the assumption that something is wrong because it is right next to something that is wrong. Or, it is wrong because it could slide towards something that is wrong.

    For example, "Allowing abortion in the first week of pregnancy would lead to allowing it in the ninth month." Or, "If we legalize marijuana, then more people will try heroin." Or, "If I make an exception for you then I'll have to make an exception for everyone."


    A List Of Fallacious Arguments

  13. #33
    The Real Captain Slow Red_5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    4,334
    Liked
    764 times

    Default

    As a fairly left leaning Independent, ex-Army with combat arms MOS, gun owner I really think gun education would go much further than many of the right-wing 2nd Amendment arguments. I don't know how you implement it but if you could actually get high numbers of left-leaning people who have only seen guns in movies to a range and educate them about how a firearm works as well as teaching them to fire one safely, you might change some minds. I like shooting guns, and even though I haven't been in years, I like hunting but the NRA seems like a bunch of crazy people to me for the most part. I think the NRA needs a new, less divisive face and message.

    The Liberal take all the guns away laws will work about as well as Conservative abstinence only sex education.
    99 Mazda Miata SuperMiata #515 - AKA Sparky SOLD
    '91 Mariner Blue Miata project AKA Napoleon

  14. #34
    Chest hair required Olitho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,236
    Liked
    2343 times

    Default

    The issue is Bart that the pro-abortion groups have a varying constituency. I presume all of them feel the first week for abortion is OK. Some don't feel the last week is OK. Therefore the advocates fight for the whole term.

    Additionally, it could be argued that getting counseling before an abortion is a good thing to make sure the right decision is made. But what happens when the law is passed if there is only budget for three counselors in the entire state, they only work four days per week between 8:30 and 4:30? If there is another law that stipulates abortions are not legal after month two and the woman can't get an appointment until 10 weeks the slippery slope has constructively blocked abortion.

    There you have it in context for abortion.

    So now let's get to firearms. How about limiting ammo sales to one 20 round box? There was the news report about some guy getting arrested who had a stockpile of ammo. He in fact had one box of 50 rounds. For many who don't understand firearms all they understand is that he can shoot and kill 50 people. 100 if he pairs them up. That is the reality of our voting public.

    So the reality is that bullet-buttons were enough. Those were considered good legislation. The same was said for 10 round magazines in rifles. Now it has been determined in California that those legislative "compromises" are not enough. A push for smaller magazines, or fixed magazines along with limited ammo purchases, registration, etc. are all examples of the slippery slope. Once the additional laws are passed it is likely we can see further restrictions on ammo sales and draconian insurance requirements... and then the limitation on larger caliber sizes. If you guys don't think a slippery slope exists you are in denial.
    bawareca likes this.
    To the right of The Sheriff. Isn't everyone?

  15. #35
    Master of Disaster SteveLevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    2,216
    Liked
    609 times

    Default

    Sitting with an IV in my arm, I had promised myself not to rage on this...but as usual, I've failed.

    Then are hundred of millions of firearms out then, probably a hundred million owners, maybe more, and we are going to stomp over their ability to have fun because less then a thousand people a year are killed by nutjobs?

    Even after years of MADD, etc, DUI deaths are just getting down to TOTAL firearms deaths. What the hell do we need alcohol for, anyway? Because some people enjoy it? Screw that. Screw that
    and the 10,000+ people killed by it.

    ANd don't even get me started on tobacco. Or this "guns are designed to kill people horsepucky."

    If I want to take my Mini-14 with my 30 round magazine out in the desert and blast Osama bin Watermelon to smithereens with my friends, that should be my choice.

    Hell, one violent crime and you can't own guns, but 3 DUI's later people are still driving? That is straight out of the south end of a bull heading north.

    Actually, I'm not sorry I raged. I deserve to say it and more people need to hear it.

    Steve
    Olitho likes this.

  16. #36
    "Shoe"
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,856
    Liked
    590 times

    Default

    What about malpractice deaths?

  17. #37
    Senior Member robburgoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,008
    Liked
    1495 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuntman View Post
    What about malpractice deaths?
    That argument along with car crashes doesn't work well with the anti-gun camp since they don't see how a private firearm could have any ethical utility whatsoever, unlike doctors and cars.

    It boils right down to "I don't like guns, I have never had a need for guns, I'm afraid of guns, so nobody should have guns."
    Olitho likes this.

  18. #38
    Master of Disaster SteveLevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    2,216
    Liked
    609 times

    Default

    I have to be careful because at this point I have more value dead than alive.

    After you are married long enough, son, there is no divorce. There are merely unfortunate accidents.
    ----- my father to me at their 50th anniversary party
    Steve

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    328
    Liked
    223 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robburgoon View Post
    It boils right down to "I don't like guns, I have never had a need for guns, I'm afraid of guns, so nobody should have guns."
    This. Definitely a factor.



    Quote Originally Posted by PMSteveLevin View Post
    If I want to take my Mini-14 with my 30 round magazine out in the desert and blast Osama bin Watermelon to smithereens with my friends, that should be my choice.
    People who don't own guns generally don't give a ____ if you have the right to shoot your Mini-14 (or any other gun). Your right to own, shoot, carry any category of weapon isn't of concern to people who perceive there's more significant public safety issue at stake. And of those who are inclined to take a more live-and-let-live approach get confused by some of the lunacy of the more extreme positions of gun ownership advocacy. It definitely is reactionary and it's not just the massacres; e.g. open carry @ places like Starbucks isn't well received. Or how a infant fishes a mother's loaded gun out of the mom's purse and shoots her in the abdomen. Or the freaky delusional hero complex of some people, that sometimes stirs up trouble with deadly consequences. Stand your ground. These are examples of bad actors. And the fact that it seemingly is condoned by groups like the NRA is baffling - and is a setback for getting the empathy of the live-and-let-live crowd that otherwise might be inclined to recognize that it might be possible to have a society that can find a balance that most reasonable people badly want. Net result - the opportunity for a middle ground dialog seems exceedingly rare. And eventually the pro gun group will lose out as a result.

    I don't mean that to sound rude or harsh, and it's not directed at you personally or any other gun enthusiast. It's simply a characterization of how polarized things are by otherwise well meaning people on both sides. And for the record I think a Mini-14 is pretty cool in a responsible setting and operated by seemingly responsible people like yourself.

    Bottom line is people suck and that's why we can't have nice things.
    ucfbrett and bawareca like this.

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Rolling Hills Estates
    Posts
    3,003
    Liked
    887 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuntman View Post
    So if semi-auto "Assault"-looking and short-barreled rifles are banned, criminals can still cause the same amount of destruction with a legal semi-auto pistol with a relatively easily attainable high round clip like this:

    Attachment 10403

    Upside down robot genitalia . . .

    capture2.jpg
    Last edited by Loose Caboose; 09-06-2016 at 05:05 PM.
    bawareca likes this.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts