Comment on Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds
sudo22@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Good. California regulations have done nothing to improve gun violence in their state when compared to less restrictive states like Texas. Even ignoring the blatant constitutional issues.
Texas has 3.2 gun murders per 100k. California has 3.4/100k.
Source, from the Murders section
Better social safety nets would be far more effective at reducing all forms of violence.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That’s not true.
www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/…/firearm.htm
Texas has significantly more firearm deaths than California, 9p/100k vs 15p/100k
We should be doing both. The lack of social stability/mobility and health services is a part of the core problem. But it is not the only part.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Gun violence is nothing more than an arbritary metric whose sole purpose is gun control. If they wanted violence, theyd say violence. If they wanted suicides, theyd say suicides.
But no, they had a conclusion and made up gun violence as a metric.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
How is counting the number of dead arbitrary?
People are needlessly dying. We absolutely need gun control.
Keeping track of how many have died is a reasonable thing.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 1 year ago
You aren’t counting the number of dead. Only the acts using a specific tool. Its a metric about the tool, not about deaths. And besides, violence counts more than deaths.
People are needlessly dying. But gun control will not solve that. Focus on why people are killing themselves.
sudo22@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Once again lumping in suicides without clearly stating such, to artificially bolster gun violence. This data includes suicides, which a mag disconnector, chamber indicator, registry, etc won’t help with.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Suicides are a form of gun violence.
I never made that argument, so this is a strawman.
sudo22@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Strawman? My friend these are gun laws in California. The state we’re talking about.
dartanjinn@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Nope. There is no and should not be a requirement to register to express a right that clearly states it shall not be infringed. Not a chance. Once again, showe a criminal with bad intentions who’s going to register his firearms he bought out of the back of a van. You can’t because they don’t exist. Registration would only make things worse for everyone. Especially a publicly searchable registry where home invaders could add that little step to planning out which homes they’re going to invade.
Any and every requirement is a barrier to your right to bear arms and is an infringement because people like you think you sit on some high horse when in reality it’s you making life worse for everyone involved. Stop it.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
And requiring registration does not infringe, as you are still permitted to own guns.
These are strawman arguments.
Nope. Children are needlessly being killed over this stupid shit that should have been dealt with a century ago.
dartanjinn@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Children are being killed over gun rights? Either you’re full of shit or you’re admitting children are being killed by the state for emotional reactions like yours.
Saying criminals are not going to register their guns is not a strawman, it’s the absolute factual truth which you willingly refuse to accept.
Do you need to register your right to speak in public? That wouldn’t be an infringement on your right to free speech, would it? Do you need to register your right to not speak to avoid self incrimination? No. Do you need to register your right to protection from unlawful search and seizure? Nope.
You register for privileges, not rights. I don’t care if you don’t like it. In fact, the courts don’t care if you don’t like it. Just ask Michelle Grisham what people think of your bullshit.