Menu
What's new

Concealed Carry Licenses in CA

Wow, slow down!

When we talk about comparing states, then all data is per capita. When we talk about total gun crime vs other weapons, then we use absolutes. I don't know what data set you are referring to, and you don't know which one I am referring to.

Mass shootings (where X or more people are killed) has not seen a significant rise since at least the 1960s, if I'm not mistaken.

And I can understand how your story colors things, but people also use guns to defend themselves. I don't really know what to say besides the fact it seems like the fight would have occurred anyway.

No one is saying that any random mental patient should have a weapon, but this court case in particular was saying that given other state law, if you can't have CC either, then you essentially cannot have a weapon on you at all.
 
The Sad Zealot said:
yea that's my bad, the stat about guns vs knives is actually about "assault weapons" vs knives, not all guns.

All those stats are per capita. Any other metric doesn't make any sense. Also, much of the gun crime is by minorities against minorities. It's not the guns, it's the culture clash.

Point is, there is no meaningful statistical relationship between gun control and lower gun crime. There are only random happenings countered by other random happenings. There aren't that many (if any) more mass murders now than before either, it's all the media.

No one thinks that Johnny-you-who should be able to walk in someplace and walk out with an AR.. at least I don't know anyone.
Click to expand...

Seven deadly enemies of man, pride, envy, greed, anger, sloth, gluttony, and lust. Most of murder that happens involve at least of those "enemies". One of those "enemies" could taken upon your conscience and might lead into a small argument into something you will regret for the rest of your life.
 
The Sad Zealot said:
Wow, slow down!

When we talk about comparing states, then all data is per capita. When we talk about total gun crime vs other weapons, then we use absolutes. I don't know what data set you are referring to, and you don't know which one I am referring to.

Mass shootings (where X or more people are killed) has not seen a significant rise since at least the 1960s, if I'm not mistaken.

And I can understand how your story colors things, but people also use guns to defend themselves. I don't really know what to say besides the fact it seems like the fight would have occurred anyway.

No one is saying that any random mental patient should have a weapon, but this court case in particular was saying that given other state law, if you can't have CC either, then you essentially cannot have a weapon on you at all.
Click to expand...

I was referring to el jorge loco when he said California, with its stricter gun control laws, has the highest total firearms-related homicides. That data was based on police report filed, which is NOT per captia. Also regarding your has not significant risen since 1960. The following is the stats from the FBI.

Murder
1991 – 24,700
1962 – 8,530
2010 – 14,748

Rape
1992 – 109,060
1960 – 17,190
2010 – 84,767

Assault
1993 – 1,135,610
1960 – 154,320
2010 – 778,901

Burglary1980 – 3,795,200
1960 – 912,100
2010 – 2,159,878

Vehicle Theft
1991 – 1,661,700
1960 – 328,200
2010 – 737,142

Ya, the amount of violence has came down since the 90s, but it also prove that gun violence in the 1960s wasn't the highest. Gun restriction has been a lot tougher since the 90s, but at the same time you can argue that has nothing do with gun restriction. On paper, "it seems like gun restriction is working".

I can completely agree with you on people use guns to defend themselves. Like I said, I have no problem with people having guns, but everyone is able to walk around with gun strap to their belt. That I do have a problem with. Yes, a fight might happen anyways, but it doesn't lead to a blunt out gun fight. A baseball smash to your head might not kill you, but putting a 9mm to your head will.

Not able to CC does not mean you can't have a gun. A superior court can rule on more restriction of guns, but I am pretty damn sure they can't ban people on having guns. They to have to re-write the constitution for that. I don't care what any conservative have to say about OH! if they take away my right to do CC then they going to take my right to have guns. I bet anyone that think that probably don't even know who is the 5 people that wrote the constitution or who wrote the final draft of the constitutions without doing a search on the internet.
 
I can see this thread going on for 10 pages... I'm out on this one as I have said all that I wanted to

Sent from my Nexus 5
 
BOT Yao said:
I was referring to el jorge loco when he said California, with its stricter gun control laws, has the highest total firearms-related homicides. That data was based on police report filed, which is NOT per captia. Also regarding your has not significant risen since 1960. The following is the stats from the FBI.

Murder
1991 – 24,700
1962 – 8,530
2010 – 14,748

Rape
1992 – 109,060
1960 – 17,190
2010 – 84,767

Assault
1993 – 1,135,610
1960 – 154,320
2010 – 778,901

Burglary1980 – 3,795,200
1960 – 912,100
2010 – 2,159,878

Vehicle Theft
1991 – 1,661,700
1960 – 328,200
2010 – 737,142

Ya, the amount of violence has came down since the 90s, but it also prove that gun violence in the 1960s wasn't the highest. Gun restriction has been a lot tougher since the 90s, but at the same time you can argue that has nothing do with gun restriction. On paper, "it seems like gun restriction is working".

I can completely agree with you on people use guns to defend themselves. Like I said, I have no problem with people having guns, but everyone is able to walk around with gun strap to their belt. That I do have a problem with. Yes, a fight might happen anyways, but it doesn't lead to a blunt out gun fight. A baseball smash to your head might not kill you, but putting a 9mm to your head will.

Not able to CC does not mean you can't have a gun. A superior court can rule on more restriction of guns, but I am pretty damn sure they can't ban people on having guns. They to have to re-write the constitution for that. I don't care what any conservative have to say about OH! if they take away my right to do CC then they going to take my right to have guns. I bet anyone that think that probably don't even know who is the 5 people that wrote the constitution or who wrote the final draft of the constitutions without doing a search on the internet.
Click to expand...


Yea, I don't want to go too far into this. But my point was that you can't use crime stats to evaluate gun control laws. Crime seems to vary more with economic conditions than with gun laws. The fact that there is no correlation could (and I would) be used to argue that gun control is ineffective, but it's hardly airtight. Gun crime went down right around the time the gun control of the 1980s expired in the 90s, so one could argue that it doesn't work, and that any correlation is a coincidence.

The court was saying that if CA doesn't allow you to A) carry a gun in the open and B) doesn't allow you to carry one that is concealed, then your right to carry one at all is effectively gone.

You don't want to get into the Constitution with me, I consider it an area of study and interest, completely outside my science schooling that I am currently partaking in ;) I could talk about it for hours.

My mentioning of 1960s was talking about "mass shootings" where more than X number of people were killed. IIRC, that number is pretty constant.

The point is stats are inconclusive at best, and laws that prevent you from having a gun in public concealed AND open means you can't have one at all.
 
Oh god, don't make me do a Constitutional analysis of California's limits on CCW and Open carry.... I am writing enough bar exam essays.
 
el jorge loco said:
Oh god, don't make me do a Constitutional analysis of California's limits on CCW and Open carry.... I am writing enough bar exam essays.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to know as much as you on particular law, but I know a lot about general principles, etc. I've read lots of writings from the time and know my history. But I only know a limited number of particular cases by name. I would say I'm an enthusiastic citizen, not lawyer :)
 
The Sad Zealot said:
Yea, I don't want to go too far into this. But my point was that you can't use crime stats to evaluate gun control laws. Crime seems to vary more with economic conditions than with gun laws. The fact that there is no correlation could (and I would) be used to argue that gun control is ineffective, but it's hardly airtight. Gun crime went down right around the time the gun control of the 1980s expired in the 90s, so one could argue that it doesn't work, and that any correlation is a coincidence.

The court was saying that if CA doesn't allow you to A) carry a gun in the open and B) doesn't allow you to carry one that is concealed, then your right to carry one at all is effectively gone.

You don't want to get into the Constitution with me, I consider it an area of study and interest, completely outside my science schooling that I am currently partaking in ;) I could talk about it for hours.

My mentioning of 1960s was talking about "mass shootings" where more than X number of people were killed. IIRC, that number is pretty constant.

The point is stats are inconclusive at best, and laws that prevent you from having a gun in public concealed AND open means you can't have one at all.
Click to expand...

please get into constitution. I would love that.

argument is part of my job you know

again. I disagree on law prevent you from having a gun in public concealed and open means you can't own a gun at all.

FYI. I hav a 1911 .45 series 70 and a glock 17
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top