APNewsBreak: Calif. handgun ammo rules thrown out

[X_Digger]

Source: Associated Press

FRESNO, Calif. – A trial court judge in central California has thrown out key sections of a state law restricting handgun ammunition sales, barring authorities from registering bullet buyers' thumbprints on the grounds that it would be unconstitutional.

Gun rights supporters applauded Tuesday's ruling in Fresno County Superior Court, saying the law would have created uncertainty by forcing local sheriffs and firearms shops to decide for themselves what caliber of bullets were covered under the regulations.


Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/19/2781164/california-handgun-ammo-rules.html

[pipoman]

1. Good news for Cali sportspeople..

[Mojorabbit]

35. +10000 nt

[Plucketeer]

2. What a sad irony

This thread stacked on top of one about Congresswoman Giffords being able to stand. Did anyone see the show Rachel did about gun ownership and the lore vs. the stats??? The states where guns are most prevalent (supposedly the states where gun owners are best armed against attack :rofl: ) - said ownership numbers are directly porportional to gun deaths in those states. So much for that lunatic notion of self-protection. But damn the common sense - look't how it goes down in the movies!



GOP JOBS PLAN

[krispos42]

3. "Gun deaths" include suicides

A lot of people tend to think of "gun deaths" as murders, but something like 60% of all gun-related deaths are suicides.

[pipoman]

5. Stat cherry picking, both of her shows were...

they have been fully discussed and those siding with her conjecture were reduced to name calling, as usual.

[HankyDubs]

11. actually the gun crowd

was completely unable to refute two key points that rachel made, so they turned to name calling and attacking rachel.

The two points they cannot refute:

Gun owners are not protecting and could not protect their fellow citizens from attack by the US military.

More guns does not equal less crime. The data does not support this conclusion.

[pipoman]

14. Point 1 is moot

other than to say that the Afghans and Iraqis have held off the US military fairly effectively with less resources by far than are available to US citizens....not to mention the refusal of much of the US military to engage their families, friends and countrymen.

As for point 2, also moot, Your failure to understand the very simple concept that nobody cares that "More guns does not equal less crime", it is your responsibility to prove that 'more guns equals more crime' or even that 'less guns equals less crime'. I haven't seen anything that trumps the BJS stats and conclusions which completely disprove either/ both of the later.

[HankyDubs]

18. moot schmoot

"nobody cares that "More guns does not equal less crime"

Hm...that's interesting since More Guns, Less Crime" is the title of one of the most important books on the subject, written by a gun rights supporter.

"other than to say that the Afghans and Iraqis have held off the US military fairly effectively with less resources by far than are available to US citizens"

They weren't able to overthrow Saddam and they weren't able to stop a foreign military from invading their country, imposing a constitution and installing a puppet regime.

[pipoman]

20. It would be far easier

to support 'more guns = less crime' given the .gov stats than 'less guns = less crime' or 'more guns = more crime'.

[HankyDubs]

21. go ahead then

lol

[pipoman]

24. For the hundreth time..

After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/percentfirearm.cfm

After peaking in 1993, the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm

Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/hmrt.cfm

Nonfatal firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.cfm

Since 1994, violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2005

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/viort.cfm

All of this while we have gone from 3 states with concealed carry to 46 states and every single year there are more and more guns (last year IIRC 14 million). Now show me stats which support 'more guns = more crime' and/or 'less guns = less crime'.

[HankyDubs]

41. for the 101st time

Correlation does not = causation.

Crime statistics are influenced by many different factors. Your attempt to connect them to one factor (because of your ideology) is flat out laughable.

[X_Digger]

46. You'll notice he didn't claim causation..

He merely disproved the necessary correlation that you would have to have to make your argument true.

Here's what he said-

It would be far easier

to support 'more guns = less crime' given the .gov stats than 'less guns = less crime' or 'more guns = more crime'.

Meaning that your correlation doesn't hold up, in light of the last 15 years or so of data.

In other words, it would be a far harder lift for you to make your claim than someone to make the one he quoted.

[HankyDubs]

47. he has claimed causation

on numerous occasions, which his "for the hundreth time" statement attests to.

I didn't make any correlation. I merely said that there is no reliable evidence to support a more guns = less crime position.

[X_Digger]

48. And a straw man, for the win! You're 3 for 3!

Care to find a quote of his endorsing such a proposition?

[HankyDubs]

49. not going to

sift through dozens of threads filled with absolutist nuttery to find this. He knows he made the argument multiple times.

But the point stands, and now apparently without any real opposition:

More guns do not mean less crime. No matter how many times the gun goons say they debunked this point, they have not.

[X_Digger]

51. "cause I say so" only works in school-yard arguments.

Let me save you some time..

The only time someone says 'more guns = less crime' is when someone like yourself comes in claiming that someone on the other side says it.

[HankyDubs]

52. pppssssttt

"The only time someone says 'more guns = less crime' is when someone like yourself comes in claiming that someone on the other side says it."

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

So that's wrong.

[slackmaster]

53. You obviously haven't read the book

Your comment is without merit.

[HankyDubs]

55. that's hardly the point

I'm not in the habit of reading propaganda that has already been debunked.

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

[HankyDubs]

56. i should thank you

for helping me prove how wrong xdigger was when he said only gun control advocates make this argument. It only took a few minutes for one of you to come here and implicitly promote the argument he claims you folks never make.

[X_Digger]

58. Someone _here_.. I thought that would have been obvious.

But I guess I'll have to be more explicit and type s.l.o.w.e.r. next time.

[HankyDubs]

59. please note

that another poster just proved you wrong right after you made your erroneous statement.

[X_Digger]

60. Have a link or message #? Not seeing one.. n/t

[slackmaster]

36. You've committed the cardinal intellectual sin of judging a book by its cover

Shame on you.

[krispos42]

16. The mechanics of a second US civil war are horribly complicated.

I'll make a couple of key points, though.


In a US civil war, the "enemy" looks, sounds, and dresses exactly like the "ally". There are no language differences, no history differences, no ethnic differences, etc. Makes an insurgency much easier and suppression harder..


In a US civil war, you can't go around willy-nilly destroying the infrastructure to suppress rebels; you'll devastate your own economy, too. And where will the money come from to fight the rebels with the economy in knots?

In a US civil war, large portions of the military would defect and go over to the side of the rebels.

In a US civil war, the firepower of the Navy and Air Force would be of limited usefulness. So would the main battle tanks and large-caliber artillery of the Army and Marines.

There are not enough active-duty troops to effectively suppress 310 million people.

In a US civil war, it is likely the base of supplies for the loyalist forces would come under frequent insurgent attacks, damaging the war effort. This is in contrast to every war we fought since the Spanish-American War of 1898, where our base of supplies was completely intact.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

50. Ah man! Why did we have to go and loose that wonderfully telling post?

[lawodevolution]

30. so this data here, does not support the conclusion?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=339915&mesg_id=339915




are yall excepting real statisticl backing of real data or are we supposed to stick to Faith based reasoning?

[cleanhippie]

34. Those are two starwmen, not points!

No one (at least here on DU) has asserted that either one of those "points" are true. Only anti-2A folks, like yourself, have stated that.

Knock down your own strawman.

One thing that IS true....

Less guns =/= less crime....

Why do I say that? Gun ownership is at its highest level EVER. Gun crime is at it LOWEST levels in 40 YEARS. Think about that.

[HankyDubs]

43. no straw man here

Gun owners routinely argue that their guns protect our liberty. Not a strawman...an argument made ad nauseam...including on this thread.

Gun owners routinely argue that more guns = less crime. Not only is this a foundational argument of the gun crowd, it is also the title of a pro-gun book. This argument has been made on this thread....thus it is not a strawman.

[cleanhippie]

54. Where? Where do you see that argument being made?

Kindly link to that post.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Rachel's ill informed comments were debunked pretty strongly here on DU

Did herself a fair amount of damage with that nonsense

[slackmaster]

8. Congresswoman Giffords wasn't shot in California. California gun laws had nothing to do with it.

:nuke:

[unkachuck]

4. "This was just going to cost police and shell ammunition sellers money."

"...on the grounds that it would be unconstitutional."

....could our corporate governments' intention be to allow civilian opposition to become targets by giving corporate government supporters easy free access to guns and ammo?

"Only in a America, Land of opportunity"

....guns, ammo and gun violence are really a human-rights issue....the Chinese should take this up with the President....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Indeed, gun control has racist and classist roots and stays close to them even today

[HankyDubs]

12. this BS again

Jeff Berry, the current "grand wizard" of the KKK has the same position as the gun obsessives:

"This is The Ku Klux Klan's version: Give me the sense to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the weapon to make the difference. Never surrender your firearms. Without the Second Amendment, we would not have the First Amendment."

So yeah, same position that I hear repeated on DU's gun forum.

The gun lobby uses racist language constantly to promote its agenda. All this fearmongering among suburban whites about "defending your fambly" from "criminals" has racial overtones. Michael Moore makes this point beautifully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPBHtjZmSpw

So...lets be real about who the racists are...kay professor?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Look at the history of gun control. Originally instituted to disarm minorities and the poor

in cities and the south and keep then vulnerable.

[HankyDubs]

38. look at the facts of today's debate

The Klan, the teabaggers and the other white nationalist groups of today support your position and make the same arguments that you do.

[Marengo]

57. Ahhh, if all else fails...resort to guilt by association

You do realize this is a fallacy of logic, right?

[TheWraith]

25. One of the groups the NRA helped arm themselves were southern blacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

Yes, in recent years the reins of the NRA have been taken over by right-wing nutjobs--but that's in large part because we let a group of third-way/Republican refugees fuse anti-gun laws into the platform of the Democratic Party in the 80s and 90s. People tend to forget that JFK was a lifetime NRA member, that Jefferson said it was the duty of all men to be armed, that MLK sought to own a gun to defend his family, and that Eleanor Roosevelt was famous for carrying a pistol for self defense.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. I could really annoy some people and bring up the Pink Pistols too

It is hard to bash an armed person

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. You might want to search the term "Negroes With Guns"

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Begone with your revisionist twaddle. Some links to ruin your day-and your arguments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=245730#245970

friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-10-09 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
18. Progress for ordinary folks didn't always come by way of non-violent civil disobedience...
To pretend otherwise is dangerously ahistorical

Of course, this history has been censored in some cases- witness the controversy over a mural depicting (accurately) Harriet Tubman armed with a rifle.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/index.html



http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

The first African American civil rights leader to advocate armed resistance to racial oppression and violence, Robert F. Williams was born on February 26, 1925 in Monroe, North Carolina. The fourth of five children born to Emma Carter Williams and John Williams, Williams quickly learned to navigate the dangers of being black in the Deep South. The Ku Klux Klan was a powerful and feared force in Monroe, and the community where Williams grew up experienced regular brutalization at the hands of whites.

Williams’ grandmother, a well-read and proud woman who was born a slave in Union County in 1858, taught Williams to cherish his heritage and to stand up for himself. Before she died, she presented her young grandson with his first gun, a rifle that had belonged to his grandfather, as a symbol of their family’s resistance against racial oppression....


...In 1956, Williams took over leadership of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which was close to disbanding due to a relentless backlash by the Ku Klux Klan. Williams canvassed for new members and eventually expanded the branch from only six to more than 200 members.

Williams also filed for a charter from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and formed the Black Guard, an armed group committed to the protection of Monroe’s black population. Members received weapons and physical training from Williams to prepare them to keep the peace and come to the aid of black citizens, whose calls to law enforcement often went unanswered...

[HankyDubs]

39. none of this changes the fact

that you have the same gun rights position as the Imperial Wizard of the Klan. Shame on you.

[slackmaster]

42. I doubt very much that the Imperial Wizard of the Klan wants black people or Jews or Catholics armed

Your accusation is hyperbolic.

[HankyDubs]

44. not in the least

if gun control advocates are branded as racists because of events during the Jim Crow era, then it is certainly worth pointing out that the Grand imperial dickhead agrees with you, not me.

[oneshooter]

40. Can you cite where that was said? Or did it come crawling out of your ass? n/t

[HankyDubs]

45. there

http://www.liberator.net/articles/KKKJeffBerry.html

Now take a seat.

[HankyDubs]

13. also note the NAACP

supported the passage of the brady bill.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-13558248.html

[pipoman]

15. As did the NRA

[HankyDubs]

17. wrong

After the Brady Act was originally proposed in 1987, the National Rifle Association (NRA) mobilized to defeat the legislation, spending millions of dollars in the process. While the bill eventually did pass in both chambers of the United States Congress, the NRA was able to win an important concession: the final version of the legislation provided that, in 1998, the five-day waiting period for handgun sales would be replaced by an instant computerized background check that involved no waiting periods.<16>

In January 1994, the National Rifle Association declared: "When Bill Clinton signed the Brady bill into law on November 30, a drop of blood dripped from the finger of the sovereign American citizen ... The executioner's tool is the Brady bill - now the Brady law ... hey'll go house to house, kicking in the law-abiding gun owners' doors." (NRA, "Line Up and Shut Up. Face Forward. Stay in Line. Last Name First," American Rifleman 32, January 1994)

[pipoman]

22. Your Brady cut and paste

of a quotation which includes "...." in the body of the quote is an affront to credibility, how about a direct quote as written? or better yet a link to the full text? The fact that the NRA supported the Brady Bill, as signed, remains true.

[HankyDubs]

37. the link

was from wikipedia. your claim that the NRA supported the brady bill is just plain laughable.

[Trajan]

9. Gungeon material ....

Be gone ...

[X_Digger]

10. And this one isn't?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4701892

One law proposed, one law struck down.. one's newsworthy in LBN, one's gungeon material?

How does that work? What are the criteria?

[Katya Mullethov]

32. IBTMTG

and OBIGMAK

[lawodevolution]

29. big 2A win

[Hoopla Phil]

31. Good, I've been waiting on ammo prices to go down to replenish

my stock and the buying frenzy in Cali was making the prices go up.

[Xela]

33. Finally...good news from CA

Good work CA.

Xela