California lawmakers have their crosshairs on gun owners once again, which isn’t much of a surprise. It’s just one more in a long history of regulation to make responsible gun ownership an absolute nightmare in this state.
There is a bill on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk that would make it illegal to openly carry an unloaded weapon in the state. Right now it is legal to carry a firearm without a permit as long as it is unloaded and in plain sight.
Aren’t there plenty of other issues within our state that California politicians should be focusing on right now? And how often do any of us see someone carrying a firearm out in the open anyway? I am a gun owner with a lot of gun-owning friends, and I have only seen two people in my lifetime carrying a gun in the open.
The excuse for firearm’s regulations is the same every time a new one comes up. It’s going to reduce crime and make people safer.
Has that worked yet? Gun laws are stricter than they have ever been in California. Has anyone noticed a drastic reduction in crime, or a reduction at all for that matter?
When this kind of thing happens, I feel that government is saying, “You don’t need the resources to protect yourself, we’re taking care of that.”
Really? Crime rates are still horrible all over the state. Not to mention this is going on as we keep hearing about budget cuts that affect law enforcement jobs.
I’m so sick of this ridiculous banter about guns causing all the problems. A bumper sticker said it perfectly: “If guns kill people, then pencils cause spelling errors.”
The reality is, a massive majority of crimes involving firearms are committed with black-market weapons that are illegal and unregistered. These are the types of weapons that are concealed illegally out on the streets.
Don’t think that there aren’t some politicians that would love to see all firearms gone, and I believe each one of these regulations are another test to see how much gun owners will put up with.
I know a lot of people honestly think that doing away with firearms will solve crime problems, but it just won’t. It will simply make things more dangerous for us law-abiding citizens by leaving the unregistered illegal weapons out on the streets and with the rest.
I honestly do believe that allowing good law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones as they see fit, even with firearms, makes society safer. There are numerous examples in other states that relaxed gun laws and crime rates dropped.
I have a family friend whose life was saved a few short weeks ago because he was carrying his concealed firearm when two men with large knives confronted him in his orchard demanding money. And guess what? He didn’t even have to use it.
I agree that in a perfect world none of us would need a firearm on the street, but let’s be honest, this is far from a perfect world.
I agree that not all of us have the ability to handle a firearm, but for those of us who can prove that we are capable, we should have the right to protect ourselves at the same level in which we might be threatened.
dfrank • Mar 26, 2012 at 2:49 pm
SpectacleStudy, I take issue with your notion of the “intentionality that accompanies the possion of a firmarm.” I am a gun owner and my intention is not to kill as you posit. I keep a handgun to deter home invaders and street-side robbers (both prevalent in my area), not to kill them. Psychologically, I know that when I rack the slide of my 45 semiautomic pistol, it makes an unmistakable and very audible “clack” that would turn any intruder in his/her right mind in the opposite direction. If push comes to shove, if the intruder is not in his/her right mind, then I am prepared to kill with it. But that is a consequence of the intruder’s actions.
In my case, and that of many other Americans, a gun’s intention is to deter, the negative consequence is a kill just a pencil’s intention is to write, and the negative consequence is spelling error. But killing is not inherent to guns just as, “spelling mistakes aren’t inherent to pencils.”
I should note that I am active duty Army and am well-trained with weapons. I understand their physical as well as psychological capabilites on threats …I gather from your post that you do not.
SpectacleStudy • Oct 4, 2011 at 11:00 pm
What’s really problematic in this article is the argument from analogy that reads pencils don’t make spelling mistakes people do. Pencils are made to write. Guns to kill. It’s not a mistake if you possess a gun. It is a mistake if you make a spelling error. There is an intentionality that accompanies the possession of a firearm. It is meant to kill. Target shooting is our projection of killing; it’s practicing for the real thing. Pencils are meant to write while spelling mistakes aren’t inherent to the pencils. A gun’s sole modus operandi is to shoot, not to sit on the wall or look deadly. Sorry Jake, not buying it for a second.
Stanley Ipkiss • Sep 27, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Guns don’t kill people, Republicans kill people! Conservative much? U MAD? 😀
rrangel • Sep 24, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Jake, your sentiments are correct. AB 144 is an excuse for one more infringement, on the numerous Second Amendment infringements, perpetrated by the state of California. The state is notorious for its bad gun control bills. Some of which are on very shaky ground not considering the recent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.
Some forget that the Supreme Court has declared the Second Amendment an individual right to keep and bear arms, and has incorporated it via the Fourteenth Amendment, throughout the nation just like the First Amendment. The notion that the Second Amendment, is a collective right enjoyed by state only, has been legally eviscerated. When you look at he bad actors involved in creating such legislation it’s always the same. They are political class elitists, who are far removed from the lives of everyday citizens, that are contending with the worst. They create dependence in our state by making people live at the mercy of criminals. In a way, they are making sure they still have a public job, so they can save us from the problems that they allow to fester. You can bet that such elitists get the protection they need by their very social status derived on the public dime.
SpectacleStudy • Oct 5, 2011 at 3:56 pm
The fact is that what these citizens are contending with are individuals who more often than not have obtained firearms legally. If you want to buy a semi automatic ak47 in California that is completely legal, but the one part that you require to make it fully automatic is readily available for legal sale. Gun laws are antiquated. It’s one thing when someone defends themselves with a semi automatic weapon and it’s a completely different scenario when they spray rounds at an “evildoer” to stop them. There needs to be carry reform. If the guns aren’t visible nobody will be provoked irrationally to take action….
Brian • Sep 23, 2011 at 10:08 pm
I take many issues with this article on gun control. First and formost I find this article makes many assertions with no facts to back it up. One example is “Crime rates are still horrible all over the state.” Where? How so? Examples please. That’s how you convice someone of your opinion. It’s reckless to make assertaions without fact to back them up.
The second problem I have is when you say, “The excuse for firearm’s regulations is the same every time a new one comes up. It’s going to reduce crime and make people safer…I know a lot of people honestly think that doing away with firearms will solve crime problems, but it just won’t.” There is actually a famous example that proves this notion wrong. I’ve heard time and again how New York City has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation and when Rudy Giuliani was mayor he helped inact tough gun policy that aided in making Manhattan and times square family friends like it never had been.
Just like the commentor above me, there needs to be facts to back up your argument. And that’s regardless of what side of the gun control issue I’m on.
Philosotroll • Sep 23, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Regardless of my misgivings about the application of the second amendment clearly outside of its original intent in maintaining civilian militia, it seems to me that I generally come down in favor of less stringent gun control (with a few exceptions, i.e. background checks and psychological screenings when applying for permits do seem both practical and warranted, and should be enforced).
It does seem a little ridiculous to submit a law asserting that it should be illegal to openly carry an unloaded firearm. If you have a permit for the firearm, why is it relevant whether or not its loaded? If there had been a rash of shootings where an individual was shot while holding an unloaded gun, maybe we could talk. But this seems generally silly.
I do want to point out, though, that I worry about the conventional NRA clichés in posts like this: it is important to recognize the failures of the ATF and appropriate regulation when it comes to crimes committed using a firearm; if you’re going to contend that “a massive majority” of guns used to commit crimes in the United States were procured illegally, then you should present some data. That’s a big claim, and there are many who contend that they were procured through means like gunshow loopholes. I’m not saying I’m on one side or the other, but there should be some data we can critically examine.