In the first case and second case, you could call it a “ban on some” or a “partial ban”.
In the third case, about the gun restrictions, the way you phrased it made it sound like the list of approved guns was smaller than the list of non-approved guns. Is this true?
Yeah, but you implied that he hasn’t been able to satisfy the chicken. That’s slanderous considering how easily satisfied most chickens are.
People use it a lot because it also uses a constitutional right.
Yeah, most people in California can’t get carry permits (that’s what people usually mean when they talk about bearing arms).
Of course. I imagine Bone has several.
Lets say that list of permissible handguns were limited to handguns that were in existence at the time of the ratification of the constitution.
No, in general its not. The right to “keep” a gun is different than the right to “bear” a gun.
Except that it would open up the entire California market to them.
And that number shrinks every day.
ISTM you guys are arguing over whose definition is more correct.
Is there a ban on the CDC doing gun research?
Is there a ban on suing gun manufacturers?
Can you make plausible arguments that the word ban is being used correctly there?
In both cases there were restrictions, not bans…and it was the pro-gun advocates that pointed it out over and over again, on this message board(if memory serves me right) and elsewhere. I think they were correct in their argument that there were no bans, just restrictions, and I think using the word “ban” without a qualifiers in the case of California gun restrictions would be hypocritical.
Probably true considering that the list includes features such as coloration. So a black glock 34 is permissible but the same glock in tan is not.
Yes, but the gun control folks were still calling it a ban. This time it is the other way around.
I think it is inaccurate to say that there is a handgun ban in California. I don’t think it is incorrect to say that a politician that wants to pass an assault weapons ban is a politician that wants to ban guns. because there are in fact guns that the politician wants to ban. You are saying that this statement is not true unless the politician supports banning all guns.
Probably true? Come on, now-you can do better than that. How many guns are on the list, and how many are still available?
Again, it depends on whether you are trying to convey accurate information, or trying to stir up emotions. if you want to be accurate, you say that he is a politician that wants to ban so-called assault weapons. If you just want to stir up emotions and rally the troops, you say he is a politician that wants to ban guns, which certainly implies that he is trying to ban all guns.
Hey, I have got a crazy idea. Rather than debate whether or not California has a “gun ban”… how about we discuss the OP:the effect of loosening gun laws?
Good point. Does anyone here hold the position that the # of legally-owned firearms per capita, or the % of households with legally-owned firearms, or something along those lines, has some correlation to the rate of crimes committed with firearms? If so, how do you answer the OP’s questions?
In general, Americans have purchased many millions of additional firearms in the last couple of decades, and concealed-carry laws have been relaxed significantly, but crime has fallen. Was John Lott right? More guns, less crime?
(bolding mine) Is that all crime, or crimes committed with guns?
I prefer to look at all crime, as I don’t think a murder committed with a knife is inherently less heinous than one performed with a gun (same for assaults, rapes, robberies, etc). We also seem to have much better statistics on overall #'s of crimes than those committed with or without a gun, but I’m open to hearing what you think are your most convincing arguments, whatever flavor they come in.
I just wanted some clarification as to whether or not more guns = less crimes involving guns.
How about violent crime? I think that’s fair.
How about someone giving me a straight answer to the question I asked?
This reveals that you don’t comprehend how the roster works in CA. There is no list of “non-approved” guns. You may as well be asking if the magic unicorn is taller than a giraffe. The question makes no sense. The default position in CA is that no handguns are allowed to be sold. The roster declares whether a handgun is “not unsafe”. If it meets that criteria, then it is permissible to sell by an FFL.
Then you ask how many are on this “approved” list. That answer is 767 as I posted in post #180. There is no other list to compare to. So unless you are arguing there are less than 1534 models of handguns ever created, then the answer to your question is obvious. The population of handguns that are approved for sale by an FFL is most certainly smaller than what is banned for sale. The population of what is banned for sale is literally every other handgun ever made. Since Jan 1, 2016, about 80 handguns have been removed from the roster. That number was about 50 in 2015, around 400 in 2014, and around 175 in 2013. So since 2013, approximately 700 models have been removed from the roster. Some new model revolvers have been added during this time since revolvers aren’t subject to the microstamping requirement.
Just asking questions though, right? No doubt you’ll be able to articulate how this line of questioning is relevant.
I did. Let us compare all violent crime. Not all crime, nor all “gun crime”.
All crime is bogus, as we wouldnt expect minor non-violent crimes like bad check writing to be affected at all by guns. All gun crime is also bogus, as if a criminal turns to a knife or a bomb instead of a gun, we havent gained anything.
So, let us compare all violent crime.