• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

After carful deliberation, I have decided CA gun laws are too strict.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 4644
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 4644

For years, I was 100% anti-gun. Actually, I still think the world would be a better place if most guns were safely in the hands of the state....

However, I have lately come to the conclusion that CA gun laws are excessively strict. Gun owners cannot carry weapons legally unless they are in a lock box or at home on private property.

In other words, guns cannot be used for self defense. Period. 99.9% of the time (unless you have a VERY rare CCW).

I've come to face the facts, criminals have guns. Criminals USE guns to commit crimes. Non criminals are not allowed to have gun, but by definition, non criminals do not commit crimes.

I think it is fairly rare that non-criminals suddenly turn to crime. If a person has not committed a violent crime by say.. age 21... I dont think they will. (Im also sure that statistics generally support this claim)

I think its time for CA to approve some concealed carry laws for adults (maybe 21+)....

What do you all think?

BTW; Yesterday three men held my roommates' dad up at gun point, made him get down on his knees and beg for his life. They then took his wallet and keys. Im not sure a gun would have helped in that situation, when criminals have the jump on you... but who knows....
 
I am with you man.... ever since I realized that laws restricting gun use and possesion do nothing to affect criminal use of guns rather that of the private citizen....

time to join to join the NRA bud
 
I've got no problem with guns, as long as someone is properly trained in the handling & usage of a firearm, then things are kosher. I do agree that some gun laws are a bit much and taking away the ability for legit honest people to have & use them is completely stupid. No matter how many regulations & restrictions you make, it won't stop criminals. Last time I checked criminals don't follow the law.
 
Originally posted by: notfred
the only part of your psot I disagree with is "safely in the hands of the state".
Click to expand...

Yea, I know the whole arguement about Nazi states and everything...

Im not sure... Im 50-50 on that issue...
 
Your logic is sound, accept for this:
Actually, I still think the world would be a better place if most guns were safely in the hands of the state....
Click to expand...
You are making an assumption that the state would not commit criminal acts. Of course, this should a safe assumption, but...
 
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Your logic is sound, accept for this:
Actually, I still think the world would be a better place if most guns were safely in the hands of the state....
Click to expand...
You are making an assumption that the state would not commit criminal acts. Of course, this should a safe assumption, but...
Click to expand...

jeez guys, he's on your side. are you that starved to remind us of your views?
 
Originally posted by: LordSegan
For years, I was 100% anti-gun. Actually, I still think the world would be a better place if most guns were safely in the hands of the state....

However, I have lately come to the conclusion that CA gun laws are excessively strict. Gun owners cannot carry weapons legally unless they are in a lock box or at home on private property.

In other words, guns cannot be used for self defense. Period. 99.9% of the time (unless you have a VERY rare CCW).

I've come to face the facts, criminals have guns. Criminals USE guns to commit crimes. Non criminals are not allowed to have gun, but by definition, non criminals do not commit crimes.

I think it is fairly rare that non-criminals suddenly turn to crime. If a person has not committed a violent crime by say.. age 21... I dont think they will. (Im also sure that statistics generally support this claim)

I think its time for CA to approve some concealed carry laws for adults (maybe 21+)....

What do you all think?

BTW; Yesterday three men held my roommates' dad up at gun point, made him get down on his knees and beg for his life. They then took his wallet and keys. Im not sure a gun would have helped in that situation, when criminals have the jump on you... but who knows....
Click to expand...
I agree.
I was stopped for a taillight out two years ago, and the cop asked me if I "had my handgun with me". It startled me and took me a second to think and say "No, it's at home. LOCKED UP!".
You could get a MAC-10 in West Oakland or Richmond in a few hours for a few hundred bucks.
But try to own a competition semi auto pistol... see what that gets you....

 
The problem with "self-defense" as an official reason for gun ownership is that criminals will just defend themselves or, more accurately, will adjust their methods to counter the armed citizen. Part of the problem with crime in America is that criminals *must* be more violent or threatening than in other countries where guns are not used similarily. Until recently(they were talking about packing heat, but I'm not sure they are now) British police have been unarmed(had firearms in trunk of car, but didn't wear them), yet violent crime wasn't near as bad as it was in the US.

The above isn't the whole story(simplified) for there are other factors involved, but current American gun ownership attitudes are still largely based on the "Lawless Wild West", an era that has long passed into history.
 
You mis-spelled Kalifornia.

& yes, it seems as though folks don't really understand self defense till they or some one they're close to are assaulted or victimized.

I was anti-gun for about 10 years, got assaulted & started buying guns & now have a CCW permit.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
The problem with "self-defense" as an official reason for gun ownership is that criminals will just defend themselves or, more accurately, will adjust their methods to counter the armed citizen. Part of the problem with crime in America is that criminals *must* be more violent or threatening than in other countries where guns are not used similarily. Until recently(they were talking about packing heat, but I'm not sure they are now) British police have been unarmed(had firearms in trunk of car, but didn't wear them), yet violent crime wasn't near as bad as it was in the US.

The above isn't the whole story(simplified) for there are other factors involved, but current American gun ownership attitudes are still largely based on the "Lawless Wild West", an era that has long passed into history.
Click to expand...
I think that's a little farfetched. Look at the crime statistics in the states that have CCW laws vs. the states that do not. Crime counters the armed citizen by not targeting him.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top