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.
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.
So I get the feeling that you’re used to arguing by just being overbearing and smug but that doesn’t mean that you actually win the argument at the end of the day. Just repeating “prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it” makes you sound like a broken record without a single original thought of your own and no understanding of basic reason or scientific method. You don’t “prove” something is true by positively showing it applies to 100% of cases, you do it by testing it against all other cases until there are no exclusions left. If you want to show I’m wrong and try to convince people here all you need to do is name a law and show me a state where it was implemented with a resulting reduction in mass shootings. The thing is, you can’t, which is why you’re just repeating the same thing over and over and over again.
As far as the far left like CNN and MSNBC causing them, it really doesn’t take much to show their impact on it. Virtually every criminal psychologist agrees that they do it for the infamy and attention and vehemently disagree with the current standard practice of reporting on them. The liberal media literally takes the exact list of “what not to do” by the experts and does just that every single time and, as the study I linked shows, this has been blatantly linked to repeats and copy cats.
As I said in a previous reply, there is a simple legislative fix here, but it goes directly against the 1st Amendment freedom of press so unfortunately, until CNN grows a conscience and decides they care about stopping mass shootings more than they hate Republicans and guns, we’re going to keep seeing these pop up from time to time. The real world solution of just having basic morals and being a decent human being isn’t even novel. Cable news shooters boil down to a very fucked up version of public suicide; virtually none of them expect to survive and those that do are almost always because they chicken out at the end. Suicide has been known to be contagious based on publicity for decades and all major news networks have developed a standard of reporting that reduces this. Unless it’s a celebrity (where they ignore this which leads to copy cats) you never see a news story about “Bill Smith was found hanging in his closet Thursday night after committing suicide.” They always use careful phrasing along the lines of “Thursday night Bill Smith was found dead in his home, no foul play was suspected.” A similar standard phrasing that does not name the attacker while reporting the basic facts of value to the public and de-glorifying the shooter would fall right in line with this. Unfortunately, they don’t want to solve the issue so we still have this. Religious based and terrorist goals would still be an issue but even without guns mass killings are always possible by anyone with enough commitment. Bombs and car attacks have the potential to be far more lethal than a single shooter in a public setting but the current trend of suicidal losers trying to get the cable news high score a meaningful change could actually be made by not fucking giving them exactly what they want while creating a motive for others that try every single time.
Sorry… you think it’s unreasonable for me to expect you to back up your claims with evidence? Are you some sort of omniscient god who speaks only in gospel truths?