A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked a California law that would have banned carrying firearms in most public places, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and deprives people of their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones.
The law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September was set to take effect Jan. 1. It would have prohibited people from carrying concealed guns in 26 places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos. The ban would apply whether the person has a permit to carry a concealed weapon or not. One exception would be for privately owned businesses that put up signs saying people are allowed to bring guns on their premises.
You did not demonstrate your claim as I requested. It’s not my job to name proposals to back up your claim. If you can’t back it up yourself, that’s not my problem.
Any of the current proposals? Not a single one from any person on any position on guns? So we just have to live with school kids getting slaughtered repeatedly unlike every other country on the planet?
Guns are a red herring in this. None of the current proposals with any sort of support from the democrats will make any sort of a difference here. The issue isn’t the guns but they focus on them and deliberately encourage them to create emotional responses to try and ban them. Semi auto bans, magazine capacities, UBCs; none of them do a damn thing to prevent or mitigate mass shootings. They are literally just power grabs. There is tons that can be done to prevent and mitigate them but the alt left wants them to happen so they can ban guns so they will continue happening.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
I have no reason to acknowledge any of those claims as valid. Just declaring them doesn’t make them true.
Prove it? They are all law in various states and countries with zero to negative correlation. Gun control and crime, to include mass shooting does not have any statistical correlation that is actually mathematically valid which is why grabber groups stray so far from the scientific method for their “studies” and rely so heavily on emotion.
They deliberately encourage them. This is a known and proven fact.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117259
You aren’t arguing, you’re just claiming you’re right and pretending that because of that you don’t need to justify shit. I can go in depth on any of these. The onus is on you to actually suggest a difference rather than falsely assuming your position is already secured.
Magazine bans for example overwhelmingly hinder defensive uses over offensive ones. Anyone that played the original Call of Duty Modern Warfare was taught this in the tutorial when they yelled “SWITCH TO YOUR PISTOL, IT’S FASTER THAN RELOADING.” An empty magazine is simply a “failure to fire drill” and is treated as such. You retreat to cover and clear the weapon. It is only an issue if you are cornered and alone. For an attacker, the easiest way to mitigate it is to bring multiple weapons, which high body count shooters do. When you are the attacker you get to select the time and place of the attack as well as set the pace of each encounter. When I go to a movie theater to watch a movie, I have a single pistol on me because carrying multiple guns isn’t practically feasible day to day. If I was told that on a specific day at a specific time and specific place I would be a in a shootout, you can bet your ass I would have multiple guns and screw concealment; this is exactly what cable news shooters do. At Virginia Tech he fired 170 rounds from 17 magazines. Many of them held more than 10 rounds but he never needed to reload under duress because he chose his own pace from room to room with opportune reloads in between. The only person that is functionally limited by a magazine capacity restriction is the person that did not choose to be in a shootout at that point in time and does not have control over the location and pacing of the fight.
I can do this for virtually every single proposal you have. I can also give counter proposals that can actually address some of the concerns like with UBCs but nothing I say is new. It has all been proposed before but rejected by the Democrats for not going too far enough. They don’t want to solve the problem or stop shootings; they want to ban guns. Gun control has and will always be about control.
Um… that’s literally what you’re doing. You are not backing up your declarations.
I just did with a link to a peer reviewed study and a detailed explanation of a common gun control proposal. Try again.
Which claim do you think that proves? Because I asked you to prove multiple claims and, as far as I can tell, that was not one of them.
That the liberal media is deliberately causing them to promote their anti gun views. CNN has way more blood on their hands than the NRA ever has.
Name a single proposal you think will prevent or mitigate shootings. I’ll wait.
That, again, does not prove any of the things I asked you to prove. I’m not going to name any proposals, because it’s not my job to prove your claims are wrong. It’s your job to prove your claims are correct. That’s how the burden of proof works.
Now, these are the claims I would like proof for, please:
1 - “None of the current proposals with any sort of support from the democrats will make any sort of a difference here.”
Please prove that none of the current proposals with any sort of support from the Democrats will make any sort of difference. Not one proposal, not ten proposals. You said none. Please back this up.
2 - “The issue isn’t the guns but they focus on them and deliberately encourage them to create emotional responses to try and ban them.”
Please prove that they are deliberately encouraging them to create emotional response to try and ban them. You have not even begun to do so.
3 - “Semi auto bans, magazine capacities, UBCs; none of them do a damn thing to prevent or mitigate mass shootings.”
This should be very easy to prove, yet you did not even attempt it.
4 - “There is tons that can be done to prevent and mitigate them but the alt left wants them to happen so they can ban guns so they will continue happening.”
Please prove that the “alt left” wants to ban guns so that mass shootings will continue happening. You have not proven this.
I have very little faith you will prove a single one of these claims because you sure have not so far.
On the other hand, you could very easily say, “I can’t prove those, they’re just my opinions.” I doubt you will, but please do prove me wrong on that one because it would be refreshing on the internet for someone to actually admit they can’t back up their claims.