Gun Control Laws And Opposition

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The CDC’s forever war on gun owners



In the CNN video, interviewer Cohen alleges that the NRA, in the 1990s, “convinced Congress to cut funding for all gun research.” That myth has been the narrative of the public health community ever since. In reality, Congress only put a stop to the CDC’s “activities to advocate or promote gun control,” as the full House Appropriations Committee report put it.


And what were those activities? Along with two other witnesses, we laid the evidence out for the Appropriations Committee:

1) A CDC-funded 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and co-authors. They used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. The sample population was a group of crime-prone urban residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical gun owners.

2) The winter 1993 CDC publication “Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence,” co-authored by Rosenberg. It offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries: “restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”

3) Shockingly frank admissions made on the record by CDC officials, describing their clear anti-gun political agenda. “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities,” said P.W. O’Carroll, acting section head of the Division of Injury Control, CDC, in “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation” in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1989.

4) A CDC-funded newsletter from the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco-based gun prohibition advocacy group. The newsletter urged readers to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.”

And now, after all that, the CDC director wants gun owners to believe her invitation to “have a conversation” and “come to the table” to “be part of the solution.” Nowhere does Walensky even hint that she has actually reached out to the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, or Gun Owners of America.

For decades, the CDC has quietly expanded its activities from its original critical mission of infectious disease control. The agency now supports far-afield research projects in spousal abuse, juvenile delinquency, and other subjects far better explored by criminologists and sociologists. Our CDC director seems to think that now, even as we struggle with the most lethal pandemic in a century, is a good time to once again direct the agency’s resources against gun owners. The public is not likely to agree.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Parkland activist calls out media for not 'aiding' gun reform efforts under Biden after doing so under Trump


Former Parkland student Cameron Kasky called out the media for its sudden shift on gun reform efforts during the Biden presidency after "aiding" such efforts during the Trump presidency.

[clip]

"Right now, this very moment is a very complicated time for gun violence prevention activists because with Biden in the White House, the media does not want to aid us in demanding stronger gun reforms because whatever Joe Biden does is suddenly the right thing to do, Kasky said. "When Donald Trump was the president, calling for an assault weapons ban and saying that the measures that he was putting in place were not nearly enough was a very popular opinion. Now if you're calling for an assault weapons ban, suddenly you're just an angry leftist who will never be happy with anything."

"So that's kinda the case across the board with activists in this time of the Biden era. Anything that their administration is willing to do is the popular thing and if you ask for even a little bit more... well, now we're the bad guys because we're 'complaining too much,' we 'aren't happy enough with all the great things President Biden is giving us.' It's tough," Kasky continued.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
California Will Let 'Violence Prevention' Researchers Know That You Have a Gun


Yes, the law also insists that "Material identifying individuals shall only be provided for research or statistical activities and shall not be transferred, revealed, or used for purposes other than research or statistical activities, and reports or publications derived therefrom shall not identify specific individuals."

Still, whether or not the resultant research as published names a specific person, a gun owner might understandably not be thrilled that people in the business of coming up with reasons why no one should be allowed to own guns (largely true of people in the "gun violence research" field) can easily know their name, address, and all the weapons, parts, and ammo they bought legally. What's more, nothing in the law as written applies any stern level of oversight or punishment over misuse of the information.

California gun owners have long had reason to be suspicious of the amount of information about gun purchases that the state insists on collecting and saving. These have, after all, led to literal attempts at confisction of certain once-legal, now-not weapons.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Firearms Reporter Shreds WaPo's Editorial on Gun Control with One Twitter Thread

Here’s what WaPo wrote about the issue:

The ravages of guns extend beyond those whose deaths are tallied in the annual FBI report. There are the families who must struggle with senseless loss, those who are injured by gunfire and those who witnessed the horror.
The Post’s John Woodrow Cox wrote a searing portrait of a D.C., girl who was the victim of an accidental shooting in May 2020. My’onna Hinton was 4 years old when a 7-year-old relative got hold of a gun left unsecured by a negligent owner. The boy thought it was a toy, squeezed the trigger and shot My’onna through the neck. My’onna is now in a wheelchair, her life forever changed. As is that of her mother and the little boy who said, “I didn’t know it was real … I didn’t mean to do it.”
Instead of putting in place sensible gun control — such as bans on assault weapons, universal background checks, safe-secure laws with stiff consequences — Congress has remained gridlocked. Meanwhile, Republican-led states have enacted laws — such as the one that went into effect in July in Tennessee that allows most adults to carry, openly or concealed, a handgun without a permit. The rising and spreading murder statistics should raise the alarm that it’s time to stop despairing over the damage done by guns and do something about it.
Click to expand...






 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The Definitive Debunking of the Gun Control Movement’s Lies


So, let’s start with Frum’s arguments against data showing defensive gun uses occur more frequently than instances in which firearms are used offensively. His argument that the self-reporting methodology used in these studies – several of which were conducted by the federal government – is flawed because of “self-flattering bias” is itself flawed because he cannot provide any evidence demonstrating that this occurred when respondents participated in the studies.

Is it possible that some of these individuals may have misrepresented their encounters? Sure, but the overwhelming number of defensive gun uses (DGUs) that were reported still demonstrate that guns are used far more frequently to defend life and property than to take it. Indeed, a paper written by David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen found:


[F]irearms are used over half a million times a year against home invasion burglars; usually the burglar flees as soon as he finds out that the victim is armed, and no shot is ever fired.
Click to expand...


This doesn’t exactly fit the “pulling a gun during a quarrel” argument that Frum put forth, does it?

Moreover, strict gun laws haven’t exactly worked in every developed nation when it comes to preventing gun violence. In Mexico, it takes six months of background checks to be eligible to purchase a firearm. Since the country has only one gun store, one must be able to travel to that location to buy a weapon.

While Mexico’s gun homicide rate is lower than the United States, its overall violent crime rate is far higher and is ranked as the second-highest in the world when it comes to violence. With a population that is unable to defend itself because of its government’s strict gun policies, this can’t be surprising, can it? In Mexico, criminals involved with the drug trade carry out about 55 percent of homicides, most of which involve weapons that are illegally obtained.
 
black dog

black dog

Free America
The average Mexican family has 3.8 members. The average family income is $2,647 dollars a quarter.
Not much left to buy a heater and ammunition.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Ninth Circuit Gun Case Debate

As discussed on Sunday, here's the highlighted opinions that really scope out the debate well.





Dissenting, Judge Bumatay, joined by Judges Ikuta and R. Nelson, stated that the tiers-of-scrutiny approach utilized by the majority functions as nothing more than a black box used by judges to uphold favored laws and strike down disfavored ones. While the court can acknowledge that California asserts a public safety interest, it cannot bend the law to acquiesce to a policy that contravenes the clear decision made by the American people when they ratified the Second Amendment. Judge Bumatay believes that this court should have dispensed with the interest-balancing approach and hewed to what the Supreme Court told the courts to do in the watershed case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 595 (2008), which provided clear guidance to lower courts on the proper analytical framework for adjudicating the scope of the Second Amendment right. That approach requires an extensive analysis of the text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment, rather than the tiers-of-scrutiny approach used by the majority. Under that approach, the outcome is clear. Firearms and magazines capable of firing more than ten rounds have existed since before the Founding of the nation. They enjoyed widespread use throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They number in the millions in the country today. With no longstanding prohibitions against them, large-capacity magazines are thus entitled to the Second Amendment’s protection.

Dissenting, Judge VanDyke largely agreed with Judge Bumatay’s dissent. Judge VanDyke stated that the majority of this court distrusts gun owners and thinks the Second Amendment is a vestigial organ of their living constitution. Those views drive this Circuit’s caselaw ignoring the original meaning of the Second Amendment and fully exploiting the discretion inherent in the Supreme Court’s cases to make certain that no government regulation ever fails the court’s laughably “heightened” Second Amendment scrutiny. This case is the latest demonstration that the Circuit’s current test is too elastic to impose any discipline on judges who fundamentally disagree with the need to keep and bear arms. Responding to Judge Hurwitz’s claim that judges’ personal views about the Second Amendment and guns have not affected the Ninth Circuit’s jurisprudence, Judge VanDyke argued this is simply not plausible when viewed against the backdrop of our circuit’s Second Amendment decisions, including Judge Hurwitz’s own concurrence in this case. Judge VanDyke consequently suggested two less manipulable tests the Supreme Court should impose on lower courts for analyzing government regulations burdening Second Amendment rights. First, the Supreme Court should elevate and clarify Heller’s “common use” language and explain that when a firearm product or usage that a state seeks to ban is currently prevalent throughout our nation (like the magazines California has banned here), then strict scrutiny applies. Second, the Court should direct lower courts like this one to compare one state’s firearm regulation to what other states do (here a majority of states allow what California bans), and when most other states don’t similarly regulate, again, apply strict scrutiny.


[clip]



Owners of firearms also may use those items at will. They may fire as many bullets as they would like for whatever lawful purpose they choose. The ban on large capacity magazines has the sole practical effect of requiring shooters to pause for a few seconds after firing ten bullets, to reload or to replace the spent magazine. Nothing in the record suggests that the restriction imposes any more than a minimal burden on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Plaintiffs do not point to any evidence that a short pause after firing ten bullets during target practice or while hunting imposes any practical burden on those activities, both of which fall outside the core Second Amendment right in any event.

Similarly, the record suggests at most a minimal burden, if any burden at all, on the right of self-defense in the home. Experts in this case and other cases report that “most homeowners only use two to three rounds of ammunition in self-defense.” ANJRPC, 910 F.3d at 121 n.25. The use of more than ten bullets in defense of the home is “rare,” Kolbe, 849 F.3d at 127, or non-existent, see Worman, 922 F.3d at 37 (noting that neither the plaintiffs nor their experts “could . . . identify even a single example of a self-defense episode in which ten or more shots were fired”). An expert in this case found that, using varying methodologies and data sets, more than ten bullets were used in either 0% or fewer than 0.5% of reported incidents of self-defense of the home. Even in those situations, the record does not disclose whether the shooter fired all shots from the same weapon, whether the shooter fired in short succession such that reloading or replacing a spent cartridge was impractical, or whether the additional bullets had any practical effect after the first ten shots. In other words, the record here, as in other cases, does not disclose whether the added benefit of a large-capacity magazine—being able to fire more than ten bullets in rapid succession—has ever been realized in self-defense in the home. See ANJRPC, 910 F.3d at 118 (“The record here demonstrates that [large-capacity magazines] are not wellsuited for self-defense.”); Kolbe, 849 F.3d at 138 (noting the “scant evidence . . . [that] large-capacity magazines are possessed, or even suitable, for self-protection”); Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1262 (pointing to the lack of evidence that “magazines holding more than ten rounds are well-suited to or preferred for the purpose of self-defense or sport”). Indeed, Plaintiffs have not pointed to a single instance in this record (or elsewhere) of a homeowner who was unable to defend himself or herself because of a lack of a largecapacity magazine.4

Evidence supports the common-sense conclusion that the benefits of a large-capacity magazine are most helpful to a soldier: “the use of large-capacity magazines results in more gunshots fired, results in more gunshot wounds per victim, and increases the lethality of gunshot injuries.” Fyock, 779 F.3d at 1000; see Kolbe, 849 F.3d at 137 (“Largecapacity magazines enable a shooter to hit ‘multiple human targets very rapidly.’”); NYSRPA, 804 F.3d at 263–64 (“Like assault weapons, large-capacity magazines result in ‘more shots fired, persons wounded, and wounds per victim than do other gun attacks.’” (quoting Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1263)). A 1989 report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms concluded that “large capacity magazines are indicative of military firearms,” in part because they “provide[] the soldier with a fairly large ammunition supply.” A 1998 report by that agency found that “detachable large capacity magazine [were] originally designed and produced for . . . military assault rifles.” The Fourth Circuit concluded that, “[w]hatever their other potential uses . . . large-capacity magazines . . . are unquestionably most useful in military service.” Kolbe, 849 F.3d at 137.

Recent experience has shown repeatedly that the same deadly effectiveness of a soldier’s use of large-capacity magazines can be exploited by criminals, to tragic result. In Thousand Oaks, California, a shooter equipped with large capacity magazines murdered twelve people at a bar in 2018. Firearms equipped with large-capacity magazines “have been the weapons of choice in many of the deadliest mass shootings in recent history, including horrific events in Pittsburgh (2018), Parkland (2018), Las Vegas (2017), Sutherland Springs (2017), Orlando (2016), Newtown (2012), and Aurora (2012).” Worman, 922 F.3d at 39. As the Fourth Circuit explained:

Other massacres have been carried out with handguns equipped with magazines holding more than ten rounds, including those at Virginia Tech (thirty-two killed and at least seventeen wounded in April 2007) and Fort Hood, Texas (thirteen killed and more than thirty wounded in November 2009), as well as in Binghamton, New York (thirteen killed and four wounded in April 2009 at an immigration center), and Tucson, Arizona (six killed and thirteen wounded in January 2011 at a congresswoman’s constituent meeting in a grocery store parking lot).



So because a citizen never PREVIOUSLY needed more than a couple of rounds to defend themselves, you can no longer have more that 10 rounds in the future


Actually IIRC Parkland the shooter had a back pack full of 10 rnd magazines
 
Last edited:
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Democrat Senator Chris Murphy: We Have The Votes For New Crackdown On Guns, Just Don’t Have Enough


Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) claimed on Sunday that Democrats have enough votes to enact a new crackdown on guns before admitting that they, in fact, do not have enough votes because of the filibuster.

“The fact that matter is, we have the votes in the House and the Senate for a universal background checks bill. We have a president who will sign it. It’s the rules of the Senate that prevent us from passing it. We probably have 52, 53, 54 votes in the Senate for this,” Murphy claimed during an interview on CNN. “So the rules right now are what prevent us from being able to enact the will of the public. But I also understand that this is, I think, one of the great social change movements in this nation’s history, that we can’t let failure or obstacles stop us.”




:lmao:
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Go ahead Hoss. Change the social Movements of the country.
Enact the rules that YOUR public wants. YOUR public of fascists and people who would take away my rights.
Go ahead try to get your law passed
.
You pass the Social movement and ban guns and you will find out there is another side to your plan.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Why Gun Storage Laws Would Do More Harm Than Good


“Michigan’s laws are woefully inadequate,” Oakland County prosecutor Karen McDonald (pictured) announced at a press conference. “We [Michigan] don’t have a safe storage law. We’re not legally required to store your weapon in a safe manner. Children are allowed to attend [gun ranges] with their parents. … We don’t have strong enough laws.”

We all want to do something when tragedies such as this one occur, but more lives will be lost than saved if we mandate that everyone lock up their guns.

Gun storage is primarily designed to prevent accidental gun deaths of children. According to the Centers for Disease Control, Michigan averaged less than two accidental gun deaths a year for those under 18 from 2010 to 2019. That’s about half the rate of such deaths nationwide.

But now, the media and some politicians believe that gun locks will help prevent mass public shootings by juveniles. Very few shootings have involved guns stolen from parents. In 2012, Adam Lanza stole his mother’s gun, even though she kept it in a safe. But he was 20. Similarly, Nikolas Cruz was 19 when he killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. So, a new law mandating locks when someone under 18 lives in the house would have made no difference in his case.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Newsom Promises To Use Texas Abortion Law Precedent To Restrict Guns






“I have directed my staff to work with the Legislature and the Attorney General on a bill that would create a right of action allowing private citizens to seek injunctive relief, and statutory damages of at least $10,000 per violation plus costs and attorney’s fees, against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California,” Newsom continued.

“If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that,” he concluded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top