I don’t know. What would the gas mileage be on it? Operating costs? Maintenance fees?
If your argument was that there was only one gun seller in all of California, then you would have a point that I would agree with.
Thanks, that’s a lot more informative than other links I’ve seen on it which didn’t come to a good explanation about the ATF’s reasoning.
I should say: a cable or trigger lock came with some of the new guns I’ve bought, but I don’t remember it in every one. And certainly with used they may or may not add one.
California requires locks to be sold with them.
11 MPG. 20+ is “high capacity” 
Some areas have none, and it might not be onerous for you or me to travel, it could be for others. And immediately after Heller, DC had no gun stores, and neighboring VA or MD aren’t a good option (federally can buy long guns from stores in other states, but not handguns). I don’t know if any stores opened since, I only see Dick’s in DC proper, which may or may not sell guns in DC.
I acknowledge you feel this way. This is also a good illustration of why people like me are opposed to gun control. The idea that everything is honkey-dory unless there is a total ban is fanciful thinking and is not consistent with Heller.
Point of information - the lock isn’t required if you meet certain exceptions like having a gun safe or having already purchased a trigger lock within the past 30 days:
Do you really believe that exempting police officers from the roster is trying to decrease gun violence? In what way would that work? My impression is that police are exempt because otherwise the police officers union would fight the adoption of this restriction and the only way to get it passed is to fracture opposition by allowing this group to be exempt from the law. That they could then turn around and sell to the general public and profit reveals more about the intention of the law.
CA and other municipalities have a history of doing this type of attempted fracturing. They try to exempt retired police officers, hunters, etc. Oh, we’re not after you guys, just those other EBRs. I’m glad to say that gun folks have wised up to this tactic lately and have been less susceptible to this nonsense. Especially the division between hunters/non-hunters. The 2nd amendment was not about hunting.
I don’t think this is true at all. Gun rights advocates do an incredible amount of heavy lifting educating. The history of this board as it pertains to assault weapons is an example. I’m glad to share and correct any misconceptions about guns whenever they arise. Being an advocate also means being an ambassador for the cause, and part of that advocacy is education.
Laws that would decrease gun violence? Make drugs legal. Shore up the public safety net. In 2014,54% of the counties in the US had zero murders and 2% of the counties had 51% of the murders. The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders.
This is a cite from Lott, but the figures are just raw data. I make no claim about correlation of gun ownership and crime rates, but this type of concentration is indicative of a problem that doesn’t start and stop with guns.
If you’re talking about only gun specific laws, then national reciprocity and open up NICS to public use.
I didn’t say you specifically. Don’t you think you are being just a tad oversensitive?
You haven’t read the thread. Here’s an example from Senorbeef that you didn’t see:
You also didn’t read what I actually said, you read into it. I did not say that EVERY post contained problems, nor did I say that EVERY argument was false.
Please go back and read what I actually said, and the many posts before me, and if you are not biased, you will see what I referred to.
I assure you that I have read the thread.
So in support of your claim that the vast majority of arguments are mixing in unsupported assumptions, you reference one thing:
The things is, this isn’t unsupported. People on this very board have advocated for a total ban. Feinstein has stated she wanted a total ban:
It’s laughable to think SenorBeef’s statement is unsupported.
Is this a parody of the “unless every single gun is banned then there is no gun ban” argument? Sophistry lies down this path. I could make a similar statement that I did not say that you said that …etc. The fact is you attacked vague unidentified arguments without specifics.
They don’t come with ignition locks, do they?
I agree that having only one or a few places to purchase guns due to legislation is wrong. I don’t agree that if there are plentiful stores around, and each store carries 320 types of handguns, that somehow that is a problem.
No, I think when I, and pretty much everyone in the US, can walk into a sporting goods store and walk out with a gun that there isn’t much of a problem. You may feel that just because you can’t get a specific gun in a specific color with glitter and a 5 mega-watt range that it’s an erosion of your rights, but it’s not a convincing argument to me. And I **agree **that you should be able to have a gun to defend your home or whatever.
Imagine how that argument looks to someone who hates guns?
But your ‘simple example’ doesn’t show any such thing. I pointed out earlier that, while you personally may be able to do what you say where you are with certain types of guns, it’s NOT LEGAL in numerous states, including the state with the highest population. And your ‘simple example’ can also be uttered truthfully by someone in the UK, where it’s definitely onerous to buy a gun, if they pick their location and preconditions right.
Your hypothetical is just weird since it isn’t remotely like any real situation, and the question you’re asking doesn’t make sense in context. In the hypothetical, my complaint might be about the issue with concealed carry permits, but it’s hard to say because the hypothetical world is so weird that there’s a ton of background that I’d need (like who’s paying for these free guns? what exactly led to a state adopting no concealed carry but free guns? What is the gun that you can get for free, is it even actually useful or is it something like an old flintlock or a water pistol?)
Your example had nothing to do with the difficulty of getting a concealed carry permit, so I’m not sure why you’re suddenly talking about those permits all of a sudden.
Ok, you have to wait 10 days in California before getting your gun. Still doesn’t seem that particularly onerous to me.
I mean, I haven’t seen a lot of complaints that a gun cannot be purchased at all. Only that their aren’t even models available, or someone can’t carry it around concealed. Are there any states where a typical citizen cannot purchase some type of gun period?
To answer a question with a question:
Suppose people in a city are going around and wearing yellow boots, and kicking random strangers in the crotch. Everytime someone gets kicked in this unexpected way, it’s by someone wearing yellow boots. There is talk of a fad or trend, of cruelty. Looking to break this trend, and the association between this violent act and yellow boots, the mayor decides, with stores’ cooperation, to ban yellow boots (even though there are a lot of innocent folks walking around with yellow boots, and some who like the color, or a particular brand’s comfortable fit that happens to be yellow). Now why does this not port to assault-style weapons? (And no, I do not think it has to do with arguments over what constitues yellow.)
Only by equivocating on the word “gun” can you make this statement and even then it’s misleading. Your position is inconsistent with Heller - they distinguish between long guns and handguns, and the availability of one does not give cover to the prohibition of the other. In any event, to prohibit something there must be some compelling state interest, simply saying other firearms are available is not sufficient or even remotely close to supporting the idea of prohibiting ANY others. And that’s where the roster scheme fails because there is no compelling interest to ban one handgun with a left handed mag release when the exact same firearm is available with a right handed mag release, especially when the plaintiff only has a left arm (how’s that for standing). There is no compelling interest for a roster that police are exempted from. The law cannot require impossibilities, and in the CA roster it does just that - by requiring technology that is non-existent, it requires the impossible.
So while you personally may feel that as long as a single firearm is available then you’d not object, fortunate for me most of the other country doesn’t feel similarly and neither does SCOTUS. Like I said earlier in response to the question in the OP, the attitude you express is a reason to oppose gun control and is an example of the type of incrementalism that is being resisted.
But it does show that your claim about ‘buy a gun and take it home that day’ is factually untrue on its face. Making an argument based on a false claim, then trying to duck out with ‘well, that’s not onerous to me’ doesn’t seem like real debate.
You’re arguing vigorously against a position that you’ve invented and trying to push people into defending that position, while taking an assertion that if people can purchase any kind of gun after jumping through any level of hoops there is not an issue as absolute fact. I’m not going to defend your strawman, and don’t accept your assertion, and you seem attached to both of those.
Short answer is yes, in almost every state and possibly now in every state – last I looked was two years ago. The exception (in most states – YMMV) is between direct blood relations and/or spouses. Usually it comes up more after someone dies and his/her guns are being divided but it also carries if the person is living. My Grandpappy could give me his pistol he just bought last week and it would be legal without a background check as long as I’m not a member of a forbidden class such as a felon.
Hey OP, you want to better understand the opposition to gun control? Try reading this (warning #1: PDF, warning #2: I think it’s largely Bloomberg bullshit, but YMMV).
PROTIP: First step, stop calling it gun control.
P.S. Stories like this set your cause back a good bit:
And this bit Clinton last year. She used ‘gun safety’ (per the link) and people were on to her immediately and it just made her look deceptive.
There’s something else: a fundamental difference in perspective. Many people who want gun control cry, “Guns kill people!” But that’s not the primary purpose of guns. Guns are tools. Guns are used for many things. Guns are used for pest control, target shooting, defence, and more. It’s the defence issue that’s the one that’s contentious, and the point is that the gun isn’t being used to kill the assailant but as a deterrent to stop the victim being robbed / hurt / raped / killed / kidnapped / whatever by the assailant. That the assailant might be grievously hurt or killed is part of the gun being a deterrent.
I’m simply expressing my opinion on what you consider onerous gun control laws. If most of the country and SCOTUS agrees with you, then why are there any gun control laws at all then?
Like I said, I support your right to defend yourself, but I disagree that only having 300 models of handgun available for purchase limits your ability to get a gun. And like I said, I AGREE with you regarding the right to have a gun to defend yourself. How do you think the argument sounds to people who DON’T agree with you? And if you don’t care what those people think, then why do you keep posting about it?
Again, I AGREE that you should be able to defend yourself with arms, as per the Constitution and various rulings and what not. But I don’t think using “guns” when you mean “handguns” is a great argument, and whining about only 300 models of handgun being available does not a convincing argument make to me. But, if as you say, most of the country and SCOTUS agrees with you, then you don’t have anything to worry about, do you?
Also, as a side note, I find it laughable that you guys think the government doesn’t have a record of all gun purchases and who purchased them.
I said I could buy a gun and take it home that day. Seems true to me.