We, as citizens, should not be obligated to reported stolen property, it is our property, not the government's, and we do not work for the government. Instead of a law forcing us to report stolen guns within 48 hours, we should be rewarded for reporting them.
WOW, just when I thought I was seeing some common sense on the side of politicians, they voted and wow. It's like saying, now I know this is a complete waste of time and money, but lets do it any way cause we are morons.
What a joke, and that they started laughing. As if they weren't going to vote it in regardless
It's already too late, the 2nd amendment is already not valid in many states and most states will follow. Say bye bye to your rights people, it's not IF but WHEN you become defensless slaves of the criminals and your goverment.
Why would you object to reporting your gun lost or stolen? If SWAT kick your door in because your stolen gun was used in a murder isn't it in your interest to do this?
Gun owners don't always break out all their guns every day, some of us only go to the range once a week/month, if it was stolen while we were out and about living our lives, we wouldn't know until it's range day, which could be well over 48 hours.
Ok, a gun is stolen, the owner reports it stolen. Then what? Just what in the hell ar ethe police going to do about it? They still don't know who took it or where it is. This is so damn stupid. Ok, now my gun i sstolen and I don't report it. Who the hell is going to know that I did not report a stolen gun? Just who is going to prosecute me for not reporting a stolen gun that no one else knows was stolen. You've got to be a total dipshit to sign onto this kind of thinking.
"Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of American, cannot succeed with any lesser effort."
WTF The horror, I can't believe this happens but folks this is what is wrong with this country. our Elected officials passing laws to further there own cause and career.
To me gun control is: Arming the (legal,adult)populace and training them how to use their armaments safely and effectively. The result(hopefully): That a more effective "community watch" is created by creating the fear of death in the minds of those who would break the law or seek to harm others.
gun laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. don't believe that gun laws are for public safety of to prevent violence that is BS. statistically states with less restrictive gun laws have less violence.
no shit, there's a reason that 'handgun control inc" was renamed to "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence". If you pass your laws under the guise of "think of the children" having "gun control" in your name only work against you.
So not is it only not useful, why keep going? All these people care about is "geting" average Americans who own firearms and putting them behind bars.
do you not think there should be some kind of restriction on really powerful weapons capable of killing large no of people being given (unsupervised) to civilians - who might not even know how to operate it correctly (even less, train someone else)? I heard a tragic case were auto pistol was given to young boy and recoil resulted in boy shooting himself in head! Is it not a worry to think a highly troubled, unstable and angry AK47 wilding kid could appear in shopping centre and open fire?
Anything can be used to kill "a whole lot of people". You can start banning everything....even the UK has started to ban kitchen knives....it never ends.
a car could potentially kill 100, but because not designed to kill 100 easily, its not a convenient killing machine, and is unlikely to give a killer chance to commit mass murder. High power gun has been specifically designed to kill as many people as quickly and easily as poss. Better a crazed knife man, who is eventually overpowered by those around him, than an AK47 crazy man? Yes -UK does ban all weapons- even knives from street. Think we should be able to carry spray 4 defence, but no.
having said that, we still have guns over here within reach of criminal gangs - you cant stop that with gun control. It only works in stopping that one nutter who loses it and goes on a killing spree. The last bad killing we had was dunblane, where a school of young children was targetted. I think that was th early ninties.
There must be a way to stop the deadliest weapons getting into the hands of people who should not handle them. A criminal with an intention of using his gun to carry out a robbery is likely to get a gun through connections, and may kill 1 or 2 people, but a mad man who has lost track of reality (a loner usually), and who would normally be unlikely to have access to gun could kill 50+ people. Therefore gun restrictions that somehow allow responsible people to keep guns could save lots of people.
Most worst examples dont seem to involve drugs: Take dunblane killing in the UK: I dont think the killer used drugs, he was just sick. He ran sinister young boy clubs, and when the parents removed their kids, he came into the school and shot them. Then the two that killed James bolger: they found him and took him onto a rail track and threw rocks at him until he was dead. killer were aged 10! They were not drugs users either, but would you trust them with an AK47, and a bag full of ammo?
There has been a culture change: the glorification of killing and guns, especially a lot of role playing games involving killing with guns (where your the bad guy!). I remember reading about a 6yr old boy (or about that age) who grabbed the gun from a police officer in the US, he shot him and then stole his car. When he was caught, he said he was just trying to play GTA!! He'd done it loads of times before and never got in trouble for it.
BS!!! that is just a rumor or something you made up!!!! do research and you will find that there is not a single study that shows any link between real violence in children and violent videogames!!
It is impossible to do research into video games and violence. it would only truelly affect a small percentage of the popullation anyway. My main focus is on guns, not video games. The people who are truelly affected by the video games may already be disturbed.
The true sad fact is that there are very sick people, who exist out in every country, and there is no quick fix - they will always be there in a free society, and a high powered weapon in their hands is the worst combination to have. But, then it comes down to whats more important to Americans: If gun rights override this huge safety issue, then the whole argument is a non-starter. Its cultural, and sometimes culture is so important that it should not be taken away - so I can understand that.
You can't legislate stupidity. The sooner you socialists realize this, the better. And the sooner you realize that it is not up to you to regulate the lives of others, the better.
Sure, tragedies will occur, but with freedom of choice, comes risk. I would rather be accidentally shot by my neighbor while he is exercising his freedom of choice than to deprive myself (and others) of that choice through some lame attempt to legislate stupidity.
your not allowed to own a personal nuclear weapon. so there is no such thing as unlimited freedom when it comes to the right to bare arms. I think there is a difference between a gun you could use to defend yourself form someone, and a weapon someone could use for mass murder.
And there again are the ridiculous comparisons of typical gun control advocates. If we can ban the right for citizens to own nuclear weapons, then fuzzy logic dictates we should be able to ban their guns as well. How such a correlation is ever made in the first place is beyond the scope of most reasonable citizens.
wrong idea: I'm saying, somewhere, someone has to make the decision that the destructive power of a weapon might make it unsuitable for untrained general population in almost unrestricted sales. I don't believe that applies to all guns. The weapons that your forefathers gave the right to own are not the high powered weapons of today. The marker of what is allowed has to be placed somewhere, and that's what I'm saying. Not saying nucs are banned, therefore so should guns. that's a simple view.
What your logic tends to ignore is that criminals hell bent on committing mass murder with such weapons will obtain those weapons regardless of any ban since criminals don't obey gun laws - period.
Furthermore, our forefathers weren't talking about hunting or defending oneself from thy neighbor, but from thy own government. They were referring to militias. It would be awfully hard to defend ones liberty (and yours) with the little handgun you would permit us to carry.
that's true: real crims with an agenda and connections will always get guns. But, mass in-descriminant murder is rarely committed by conventional criminals though. A criminal with an agenda, regardless of how nasty he is, he is unlikely to walk into a shopping market and fire indiscriminately. He will specificly target people who stand in his way. Whereas most of the big killers are loners who don't have connections. The university student who loses his mind is an example: they're the worst!
But that is exactly the type of person who will be determined enough to find the weapon through any means necessary in order to carry out his crime. He is obviously not a law biding citizen.
You don't need "connections" to buy illegal firearms. Many news reporters have demonstrated this over and over by simply going to a specific area of town and buying an illegal weapon off the street. It's no different than buying drugs - people know the areas of town to get it if they want it.
hard to walk up to a gang, gain a gun. Well, in the UK, all the shootings, when they happen, normally the result of mistake n identity or someone aiming for someone, but hitting someone else. evidence doesnt support loners with personality disorders travel the rough end of a town, approach, asking for guns. Media form connections, and I have seen this with drugs too. The last loner personality problem type killing in the UK was dunblane, because of relaxed gun laws that were since tightened.
For what its worth, I can understand why an American might want a gun, and I do have experience firing guns myself (as a cadet, in a military training enviroment). But the potential killing power of such weapons is too great to allow every single person to handle unrestricted.
You're missing the point. If guns were banned, the loner mass killer would still be able to obtain his weapon of choice. It is irrelevant whether they have in the past.
The result of the UK gun ban has been out of control knife killings and criminals who can still obtain firearms while citizens are left defenceless.
The UK is now a police state so it's too late for you. You have no weapons left to defend what little liberties you have left. We don't want to wait until it's too late.
knife crime happens: someone whose got psycological problems goes mad, it results in the death of one, maybe two people, the knife man is overpowered or people get away and police arrive and get him. Remeber, I'm mainly talking about high powered weapons, not standard handguns. The thought that anybody can get hold of an AK-47 is not good. You'll have to agree, there is a big difference between the killing power of a knife and an AK-47? But, yes I think they disarmed the public too much here.
at the end of the day, you have thugs who dont need weapons to target old people, and taking weapons off everyone is more likely to deter the law following public than the thug, whose got very little to lose. But again, the main gun threat isnt the gun point robber or gangster, but the guy that loses all track of reality and goes on a killing spree. with an AK-47, he can take 50+ people with him; with a knife, he could take two; with a handgun, maybe he takes 10 people before the rest flee.
I don't know why you are still trying to explain the difference between an AK-47 and a handgun or a knife? It's irrelevant.
Regardless of what weapons you ban, if someone wants to go kill 50 people in a school etc they can get that AK-47 on the street. You only ban law biding citizens.
Bombs are banned, but that didn't stop terrorist from blowing up trains in London, did it? Guns are banned from planes and stealing planes is illegal, but that didn't stop 9/11, did it?
the terrorists had training in Pakistan. They were serious terrorists with connections and training. There was one loner type terrorist (with psychological problems, who you might compare to the guys who do school shootings) who tried to make a bomb once actually, and all he did was injure himself and get arrested, because he had no connections and he didnt know how to make a bomb. Same principal applies to guns. 9/11 were even more highly trained and connected than london bombers.
Training has nothing to do with it. Anyone with no knowledge can make a bomb. There are instructions all over the net on how to do this.
The simple fact is, that banning something does not stop those who are intent on obtaining said banned item from doing so. Period.
And yes, the average person does need to be able to buy weapons such as AK-47's - see my post above regarding the real threat. Again, you aren't going to intimidate your government with sticks or handguns.
Many of the terrorists have failed to make effective explosives in the UK. We had those docs that tried to blow Glasgow airport and only succeeded in BBQ themselves, we had the bloke that blew his face up in a pub toilette and other failed attempts. We even had one group, even with training, allowed their bomb material to break down, rendering the bombs useless. This would suggest its not easy - luckily! However, unfortunatly for our troops, groups in afghan and iraq have no such problems.
And you're right - the main threat isn't a robber or gangster. It isn't even the loner sicko who will kill 20 ppl at a school - the main threat is government. That is why the 2nd Amendment exists.
People of the UK should know this from experience - that if the ppl are disarmed, the next step is a police state where gov (instead of the ppl) will have all the power. Total power corrupts totally. There needs to be equilibrium.
I think you have to accept that gun control saves lots of lives, but then debate whether free gun ownership is important enough to keep it going. Maybe it is? I wont criticise that view. As I said, we haven't had 1 mass shooting that I can remember since dunblane killing, after gun ownership was tightened further. But just because something saves lives, doesn't always mean its good for a country. We would save lives if everyone drove at 20mph everywhere. It depends on other factors.
No, gun control does not save lives. There are numerous statistics to support this, including in the UK.
watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
Even people in the UK want their guns back.
watch?v=mKdBxpKqUvs
The gov loves citizens like you who will help them to disarm the public making it very easy for the gov to impose their will on the ppl instead of the other way around.
No, I honestly can say with certainty that people in the UK think totally differently about guns than in the US. If you read a news forum or watch UK news when there is a shooting, you'll see the attitude to guns is totally different to the US (I'm not saying it's better, but its different). We dont like police to even have them (which I think is going to have to happen). I can say that honestly, the UK public dont want people to have guns over here. People feel strongly about that.
And that's exactly why you have few liberties left to defend. You are powerless against your gov and they now have all the control. They can do whatever they want, and you are powerless to stop them.
I suggest you watch this video of your countrymen:
watch?v=mKdBxpKqUvs
The biggest demonstration of its kind in UK history - the ppl want their liberties back and realize the only way to get that is to get their guns back.
Firearm related crimes in the UK have increased overall by almost 40% since the gun ban was introduced. This certainly does not support your theory that gun bans = less gun crime.
I dont know where you got the figure that gun crime increased in the UK by 40% since the gun ban came about? The UK has had a gun control since 1824 . If you are comparing gun crime pre 1824, there could be all sorts of reasons why less people might be shot in 1824 than in the year 2009. Did you really mean that, or did you just mean tighter restrictions for gun clubs that came about after the dunblane killing? The fire arms act came in 1920, and again cant compare crime then and now.
Why don't you watch the video I provided a link to and you'll find out where the stats come from.
It seems like you don't want to investigate this at all. You just blindly insist your position is correct and assume to represent the opinion of your countrymen when in fact this is not the case. Watch the video and see what your countrymen really think about gun control instead of simply stating your position is also their position.
I think MPs (same thing as seniors) would disagree with that view at the moment. They are getting a pounding from joe public over their expenses over here. Don't know if its been on US news over there, but its rocked parliament to its foundations. We have MPs coming out and paying back huge sums of money that they took unfairly: you might take that as proof that we don't need weapons to get our point across. best way to keep liberty is freedom of information: that's the best defensive weapon.
and the very strange thing is that this hunting protest wasn't much to do with guns at all; I remember it well! It was all about the right to hunt foxes using dogs in the traditional way. The reason it was banned was because it was thought a cruel way for a fox to die (to be ripped to pieces by dogs). Of course, this stopped the long tradition of certain people who say its part of their community tradition to hunt foxes in that way (passed for generation to generation).
I saw it. If you take the whole UK, your bound to see some people who want guns. The fact is, gun control was introduced in the 19th century; gun bans were introduced after ww1; they didn't like the idea of guns being around. Vid makes it look like its something new, isn't, and if the gov came out tomorrow and said guns were legalised, there would be protests on the street. look at wiki-pedia on UK gun control, and you will see, we have no main gun lobby. utube wont allow links unfortunately.
Was little said about guns then. rally you see is the country protest hunting ban: came in due to animal cruelty laws. Honestly, this country's people don't see guns in the way that video tries to suggest. There is no gun debate, and legalisation of guns is unthinkable to the UK public. Not just trying to make things agree with my view. Vid is interesting, but if its suggesting handguns were recently banned, its very misleading to you Americans. I would question the agenda of the vid.
You see, the guy who comes out and says "since handguns were banned there has been a 40% increase in crime": Don't know what he's talking about. Maybe he's talking about the states; a state that banned guns, and its been made to sound like the UK? Because what he says doesn't mean anything relevant in the UK, unless he's talking about a tightening of the rules for specific groups (maybe farmers?). Even if he means that, it doesn't make sense, because there aren't enough people in that group.
vid showing protest against the fox hunting ban (there was very strong feeling), making it seem like its a protest: lots of British that have recently had their guns taken off them! Then, reporter goes to a few people (at least one of them American) and ask them if they want guns? But, my dad born 1947, throught his life guns been banned, and my grandad, 1922, and same throughout his life. so its not new. my grandad tried to bring sten-gun back from WWII (souvenir), but got taken off him - lol.
Well, you just proved my point about you discounting statistics simply because they don't support your position.
"Defence Studies at King's College in London says that handguns were used in 3,685 offences last year compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40 per cent." Based on government figures.
Even your own Scotland Yard acknowledges the increase and suggests the 1997 Act has failed.
"The increase in the use of handguns by criminals since the implementation of the 1997 Act clearly raises important questions for policy-makers considering further controls on legally-held firearms." - John Bryan, former head of the firearms intelligence unit at New Scotland Yard
They are all wrong, and you're right. Okay. It's clear that, like any other socialist liberal with their head in the sand, no matter what statistics are presented, you will continue to deny/ignore them in order to continue with your agenda based on personal belief rather than actual facts and logic.
they're not wrong. 97 act not setup to stop criminal gun deaths; was supposed to stop another dunblane. havent had anoth school shooting since 97. There're different types of gun deaths: the worst being the mass indescriminant killings that are carried out by people like in school shootings, we had more crims with guns, yes, but no mass shootings.
watch?v=dExPZzD3KG8
this video tells the story of what brought about the 97 act you mention: dunblane killing. It comes in different parts.
I believe the 97 act is about tighter shooting sports controls, not mass gun ownership control. small minority of the population take part in these activities, so I cant see that act could be responsible for a rise, even if deaths happen to increase, because of the small numbers involved. The act wasn't designed to reduce overall deaths, it was to prevent dunblane from happening again. He's saying it didn't reduce overall gun deaths - which is in general correct! We haven't had a mass shooting.
My God, man. You haven't even read the 1997 Act. How can you debate something or even have a position being so uninformed? This is typical of gun control advocates.
The 1997 Act will do nothing to stop another Dunblane incident. The gun bans, both in the UK and US, have done nothing to reduce gun related crime. Statistics show the opposite is true.
If you want to continue to support something while ignoring facts, and puts you at more risk, knock yourself out.
I believe the last similar event was in 1987 in Hungerford. Just because a mass killing hasn't occurred in the last decade does not mean the 1997 Act has prevented it. It can't. It just means that some whacko hasn't yet done so.
If you honestly believe that someone couldn't do this again (even with a handgun), then you're living in a fantasy world.
What you fail to realize is that gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. Period.
read it: before the ban, you still had to be a member of a shooting club and own a gun licence. Weren't allowed high power weapons. Could never go to a gun shop, buy a weapon here.
less ways someone can get a gun, less ways a person is likely to have an opportunity use one in this way: that's logic.
a person has to break the law to have guns, they are less likely to have them to hand, when they go mad.
Americans feel its a liberty you need, and I respect that strong tradition.
actually, one thing worth mentioning is the thing that has recently allowed guns to increase in the UK: you see, our governments are very bad at making laws for some reason. They went to all the trouble of banning guns for sports, yet due to stupidity, there is a legal loop-hole that allows people to buy replica weapons (which are real guns of course). Now, these weapons are easily made live again, and have been. So, thats the reason why a lot of guns are getting back on the streets.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
we recently had a case of a bloke turning up at a gun manufacturer and ask for some super high powered sub machine guns, because he was apparently working on the new james bond movie. And without too many questions, he got these weapons (that were made safe) and with a bit of DIY, he made these into super leathal weapons and started selling them on the streets! Well, naturally people started getting killed. Eventually he was tracked down and nicked. I dont know if they've tightened it(hope so).
WOW i can't believe they got the black chick to change her mind. you just saw all her integrity disappear, out of nowhere; she had seemed so smart. this shows how SELFISH, greedy and slimy pretty much anyone in government is. Wholy Fuck. Great video
I believe that this shows plainly the kind of self-interested, over ambitious, political maneuvering that leads to useless or harmful gun control legislation, as well as the entire spectrum of silly safety dance regulations and other liberty limits. Thankfully, I don't live near this locality or state. Good luck to all of you who do, looks like you'll need it.
Damn I hate living here in California. I mean at the end of the day all these people really want is to ban anything that can be used as a weapon. Whats next?? If a kid kills another with a hammer, do we ban those too? WTF!
I cannot believe my eyes. Am I reading this right?
Despite the fact that they cannot find any supporting evidence to show causality in regards to effectively dropping any crime rates whatsoever, and despite the fact that they cannot reveal any progressive utility to said laws in other jurisdictions, THEY STILL PROCEED TO DRAFT THE ORDINANCE ANYWAY?
What kind of banana tinpot republic are they running? I feel like I missed something here.
Bingo. As Ms. Hammond states near the end of the video: "...[Gun Control] has been a very powerful tool in moving people to other elected offices..." Yes, you are missing something here. We all are. Common sense and focus from elected officials. Gun-owners make politically juicy punching bags. Hold suspect all who promote gun control because they are lying to you.
What is it with American TV? All I ever see on documentaries with video clips of American news stations is all these "new dangers" and "threats" pumping people full of fear of something that doesn't exist. Ordinary people get a hold of a weapon, turn into Charles Manson, kill 50 people, then return back to normal when they set it down? COME ON...
Someone posted a comment to the effect "I support the right to own guns but the issue is simple - just report the gun stolen." I accidentally deleted your post. Sorry. I'll reply to this one with my response anyway.
No one disagrees that stolen guns should be reported. The issue is PENALIZING INNOCENT GUN-OWNERS WHO FAIL TO FOR INNOCENT REASONS (like not even knowing t5he gun was taken.) So, where gun-owners would normally be EAGER to work with law enforcement (to help get it back), this stupid law make them NOT COOPERATE because they are possible subjects of prosecution. THIS BAD LAW BECAUSE HONEST GUN OWNERS REPORT THEIR GUNS STOLEN NORMALLY! DISHONEST ONES WON'T REGARDLESS.
Another problem with this law is IT PENALIZES VICTIMS OF CRIME. An honest gun-owner like you or me is first made a victim by having the gun stolen, then again BY GOVERNMENT because you may not have reported the gun fast enough to suit your local politician. You have to think critically about these things and not jump at what you think sounds good. That's how much bad law is passed - by politicians preying on your emotions.
Lastly, pay attention to the video! In places that have passed this law, THEY DO NOT ENFORCE IT. NOWHERE. All it does it put gun owners at risk and advances the careers of politicians who don't give a fig for your rights or whether you ever suffer a home invasion. WATCH THE VIDEO - IT'S *THEIR* WORDS, NOT MINE OR NRA'S!
Note that some say this law is needed to counteract "straw purchases". DON'T BE FOOLED. It it ALREADY illegal for someone to buy a gun legally, then give it to someone else without going through an FFL, which tells the state, which applies the waiting period. IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO DO THIS. So, if it's already criminal, WHY EXPAND THE LAW TO GO AFTER HONEST GUN-OWNERS - those who have been a victim of crime once already by getting their property stolen?
@ammoguide Accually, it is only illegal to legally buy a firearm and then give it to someone else if you have a resonable suspition that they are not authorized to have a firearm, such as if they are an ex-felon. I understand the laws are....well unlawfull out there in California.
Dear Ammoguide. I understand that the anti-gun movement is uneducated on the subject, illogical and usually wrong. I just am trying to point out to people that the reason for the demand for the hugh amount of underground guns is rooted in the war on drugs. The NRA is not the reason for california's violence problem as you and I both know
No, of course not. The legal use of guns is never a problem. We surely agree more than disagree. But I believe the criminal use of guns is dwarfed by the legal and proper use by those such as you and I. So the criminal demand, in relative terms, is correspondingly small. If it was cut in half today it wouldn't slow Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer down one bit.
Chuck Schumer sucks. I live in the same state and he dosent have a clue. It was a real pain in the ass for me to get my full carry license here. The Empire state "may-issue" system is set up almost identical with California's. It was not fun trying to get one. I hope to change it but all we have is 3meninaroom for a government.
California has very draconian gun laws and drug laws. This is where the problem is. They need to reform their laws at the state level. End the drug war and institute an objective "shall issue" system
Gun Control Laws and Drug Laws are not related and should NOT be discussed as though they were. Law-abiding gun owners are careful to obey the law and mixing these issues politically feeds into the prejudices of the ill-informed.
Dear 3meninaroom, I accidentally deleted your previous reply. Sorry. But please consider that the anti-gun movement operates independantly of any other cause. Whether America had a drup usage problem or not, whether there were a War-On-Drugs or not, gun prohibitionists would still be trying to disarm the public.
They took the handguns away from the legal owners in England and Austrailia. Then they took their sporting rifles and shotguns. Violent crime is on a massive upswing in those countries now. It's going to happen in the US just as sure as idiots keep electing liberal socialists into office.
Law abiding citizens will report a stolen weapon. What this law does is make a criminal out of you if you don't report it stolen within 48 hrs. What happens if you are away on vacation when it gets stolen or you don't notice for a few days?
The ordinance says withing 48 hours of when you REASONABLY should have become aware of when it was missing. So who defines what's reasonable? When an ordinance uses ambiguous terms like that, it's just bad law, plain bad law.
Why do these people bitch a very big chunk of guns in california are probably bought is states like Nevada and Arizona. I live in arizona, I can get anything up to semi auto and handguns with no liscence.
You don't need a "license" to own a gun. Perhaps for identification, which is a good thing, but not to own a firearm. The nice thing about living in our Republic is that are constitutional laws cannot be readily taken. A democracy, well thats just two wolves and a sheep discussing whats for dinner.
Oh, I know you don't need a license for regular guns but you do for like full auto or so called "destructive weapons" (class 3 out here, I don't know if it's the same everywhere else). All you need is to be 18 for rifles, shotguns, ect. and 21 for handguns. I'd love to get somthing like a full auto auto AR15 or an AA12 full auto shotgun, but you do need a license for those.
Hehe, a gun is an equalizer. In states that are pro gun control that don't like honest people to stand on equal ground. Also you can buy fully automatics without a liscense to.
Hmm... Well I guess it's different out here. I can get a concealed weapons permit no prob. But you need a liscence for an automatic. Like I said a few of the weapons I want are military only, or as far as I know they are.
Most of my family lives in california, 2 of them have concealed weapons permits and guns to go along with those permits, i don't know how they can put up with this kind of crap.
Vote Ron Paul for President. Ron Paul will fight for all of our Constitutional rights. Google Ron Paul, register Republican, vote in Primary. Ron Paul cured my apathy...
Glad you like the video. "how many people get killed by cars,cigs,bats,pipes,hammers?" I've tried to address that issue with a special page. Since I don't seem to be able to post a URL here, please Google "Mike Haas Life Clock".
What a great law this is. I'd love to go on vacation for a month, come back home and find my house ransacked and the cops waiting for ME. I'd love 30 felony convictions punishing me for being stolen from.
GUN CONTROL! That's why California is the safest place in America! LOL! Sometimes I wish all the libs would go to CA and the others can evacuate. A political science project of sorts. Then they can unleash all their radical ideas and finally show America how it's really done. Wouldn't that be awesome?! We'll just have to stand guard around CA to make sure we keep it contained. LOL!
I used to live there. I feel the same way. The libs can take it and run it into hell. They would be happy with that anyway.
About 3 years before I knew I was going to leave I just stooped caring about what was going on there, its wasted energy. There is no way CA is ever going to be able to recover, well unless a 10.5 hits (like in the made for TV movie) and levels LA and SF!
Gun control is good... for people like Hitler and Stalin who wanted to disarm their populations to make it easy for them to torture rape and kill their people by the millions. But hey... Who are we to question the gun control "gods" of our US legislative government? But they would never lead us astray for power or money...
Governments are the leading cause of unnatural human death above anything else!
Don't believe me... Just let history repeat itself.
That's a sick and disgusting way to further your political agenda. Lately it seems too many politicians are claiming to be 'tough on crime' but are really only supporting firearm restrictions that keep lawful citizens defenseless against the criminals that these laws protect. It's a shame that politics in this country focus on passing 'feel good' legislature instead of actually doing something about the problems.
That's how all of California's politics works from San Francisco to Los Angeles, from issues on schools to issues on health care. It's never about facts, it's always about agendas.
"Smart" guns are another issue ENTIRELY. And remember, digital electronics fail/can be hacked, batteries go dead, and what does EMP do again? Gets dropped in water? Shame to have your gun CRASH just when you need it, eh?
Personally this is necessary. I am not a Gun control kook. I have a CCW I and I CARRY. But you have some out there who legally buy a gun and for one reason or another "lend" it to someone. The person shoots someone. they find the gun and trace it to the gun owner who says that they forgot to report it stolen.
This is NOT necessary - straw purchases are already illegal and has NOTHING to do with lost or stolen guns. And what about the person that never realized their gun was stolen? You simply victimize the victims twice. Once by a thief, then by government.
They say their are more guns than people in the U.S
The guns are here and making laws to make guns illegal will only prevent law abiding citizens from defending thereselves against people who sneer at laws. "criminals" Nobody is going to disarm me, I dont care what future laws are passed. Nodody is going to tell me that im not allowed to defend myself. Its my natural right.
You don't need to watch this video. Here is what is is: Let's make an ordinance that will turn the victim of burglary into a criminal. Here is the proof that this ordinance will not affect violent crime. But let's do it anyway. Oh yeah. Let's not even THINK about ordinances that DO help reduce violent crime, because we don't want to be voted out of office. If we are lucky, this will be adopted at the state level.
It will turn victims of burglary into criminals IF THEY DO NOT REPORT the stolen firearm... am I the only pro second amendment person here that thinks that NOT even bothering to MENTION that a gun has passed from your hand to that of a CRIMINAL... IS CRIMINAL, and should be considered as such?!
You are completely missing the point. Yes, right now, gun-owners are almost always eager to work with law enforcement to recover their firearms. Who wouldn;t be? But this law gives gun owners a REASON not to report it - one becomes a possible target of prosecution yourself if some beauraucrat thinks you didn't report it "in time". So here is a law that makes an innocent gun-owner who has been a victim of theft now need an attorney, too. Now THAT'S immoral.
This is just great. By passing this measure they have just made a victim into a criminal. I wonder if they have similar ordinances about reporting the theft of automobiles, baseball bats, or hammers?
Gun control isn't about guns...it's about control.
Well, at least Lauren Hammond is ONE honest person on that council. She really was telling it like it is, and was very subtle (perhaps TOO subtle) in laying plain that gun control laws just don't do anything beneficial. She really called them on using gun control as a springboard to higher office -- THAT'S the goal of these scumbags.
So after no one was able to say that this thing would do one iota of good, or have any effect whatsoever; after no one was able to point out a single other jurisdiction that had actually used such an ordinance in a prosecution; after repeated clarification that this is a feel-good, do-nothing idea... These MORONS actually voted to write this ordinance anyway. Great.
The reason they drafted the ordinance, even though they know it's ineffectual, it that many people(anti-gunners) feel that GUNS ARE BAD EVIL DEVICES and shouldn't be in society.
MOLON LABE, lol. Gun control isn't crime control, its controlling the guns that the law abiding seek. Do they want to ban them because they(anti-gunners) dont like them, or because they think it reduces crimes.
If the antis answer yes to either, they are wrong.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit... Does this still stand? It dosen't look like it.
aeonsago777, most of the people I know in my neighborhood and many in my family are Democrats and all are pro-2nd Amendment and anti-gun control. It's like abortion--it's not politically correct to say you've had one, but lots of Republicans have. The leading Democratic candidates are anti-guns--and the leading Republican ones aren't much better. We need to educate members of both parties.
While the black lady should have voted no.. I certainly respected her thought process.
Plsd2beme 4 months ago
i'm not allowed to own a bb gun
assman255 5 months ago in playlist gun control
We, as citizens, should not be obligated to reported stolen property, it is our property, not the government's, and we do not work for the government. Instead of a law forcing us to report stolen guns within 48 hours, we should be rewarded for reporting them.
recordmanful 6 months ago
WOW, just when I thought I was seeing some common sense on the side of politicians, they voted and wow. It's like saying, now I know this is a complete waste of time and money, but lets do it any way cause we are morons.
What a joke, and that they started laughing. As if they weren't going to vote it in regardless
cab24 11 months ago 2
It's already too late, the 2nd amendment is already not valid in many states and most states will follow. Say bye bye to your rights people, it's not IF but WHEN you become defensless slaves of the criminals and your goverment.
Redcaster916 1 year ago
Liberals, in love with ideas rather than facts....
warmaggot666 1 year ago
A bunch of emotional women.
ppaulst 1 year ago
An ordinance is not a law cities cannot make their own laws it is unconstitutional!
trufreedom87 2 years ago
VA tech was caused because there wasa no gun law rule when i when there in 1991 he would have been gunned downed very fast
jaay334 2 years ago
I don't get it.
Why would you object to reporting your gun lost or stolen? If SWAT kick your door in because your stolen gun was used in a murder isn't it in your interest to do this?
billburns2 2 years ago
Gun owners don't always break out all their guns every day, some of us only go to the range once a week/month, if it was stolen while we were out and about living our lives, we wouldn't know until it's range day, which could be well over 48 hours.
rommelAOE 2 years ago
Ok, a gun is stolen, the owner reports it stolen. Then what? Just what in the hell ar ethe police going to do about it? They still don't know who took it or where it is. This is so damn stupid. Ok, now my gun i sstolen and I don't report it. Who the hell is going to know that I did not report a stolen gun? Just who is going to prosecute me for not reporting a stolen gun that no one else knows was stolen. You've got to be a total dipshit to sign onto this kind of thinking.
jboritzki 2 years ago 5
"Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of American, cannot succeed with any lesser effort."
-- President John F. Kennedy, January 29, 1961
GunOwnerDan 2 years ago 8
@GunOwnerDan Well said. Today's Democrats would not nominate this pro-Constitution, anti-communist, man for President.
When/where were these words spoken? Or, where were they written?
Thank you.
RosalitaBU8 1 year ago
@RosalitaBU8
JFK said it as part of his Roosevelt Day commemoration message on January 29, 1961.
GunOwnerDan 1 year ago
@GunOwnerDan Thank you.
RosalitaBU8 1 year ago
of course the bloke wasnt working on the new james bond movie, as he was just a criminal.
geoffart 2 years ago
HOLY CRAP!! That was bizarre. Everybody against it. No value. Lots of reasons it won't be meaningful......Everybody then votes for it!!?!?!?!
CA is shit, anyhow.
In most of America, politicians are finally seeing the light:
1) Politicians who vote for gun control risk their re-election.
2) If official: The individual right to bear arms is now the law of the land!
3) MOST people in fact support the right to bear arms!
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
Whatever they try to do. If they try to take my guns, there will be a killing. Besides me.
SawHappy 2 years ago
WTF The horror, I can't believe this happens but folks this is what is wrong with this country. our Elected officials passing laws to further there own cause and career.
jsh78mang 2 years ago 2
Wow a liberal with common sense. Doing her Job. kudo's to her.
jsh78mang 2 years ago 2
To me gun control is: Arming the (legal,adult)populace and training them how to use their armaments safely and effectively. The result(hopefully): That a more effective "community watch" is created by creating the fear of death in the minds of those who would break the law or seek to harm others.
TheBlackSheep2134 2 years ago 3
gun laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. don't believe that gun laws are for public safety of to prevent violence that is BS. statistically states with less restrictive gun laws have less violence.
xXCRABBXx 2 years ago 3
Plus, LCAV is supposed to be an anti-violence organization. Well, gun ownership isn't violence.
Their name and purpose are two different things. All they want to do is ban firearms.
NoGuff 2 years ago 3
no shit, there's a reason that 'handgun control inc" was renamed to "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence". If you pass your laws under the guise of "think of the children" having "gun control" in your name only work against you.
filthywalrus 2 years ago
So not is it only not useful, why keep going? All these people care about is "geting" average Americans who own firearms and putting them behind bars.
NoGuff 2 years ago
holy crap...this woman is amazing...if you look up rational and logical in the dictionary you will see a picture of this woman.
as the old cliche goes..."guns don't kill people, people kill people"
beexsama 3 years ago
/watch?v=wlSYTtuzFZY
SUICIDE MASS KILLERS ON PRSCRIPTION PSYCH. DRUGS
No shit, ban drugs?
chewbaca1989 3 years ago
If gun control is so great, why do many 'gun control' activists have armed bodyguards and handguns?
StoogeWatcher 3 years ago 5
do you not think there should be some kind of restriction on really powerful weapons capable of killing large no of people being given (unsupervised) to civilians - who might not even know how to operate it correctly (even less, train someone else)? I heard a tragic case were auto pistol was given to young boy and recoil resulted in boy shooting himself in head! Is it not a worry to think a highly troubled, unstable and angry AK47 wilding kid could appear in shopping centre and open fire?
geoffart 3 years ago
Anything can be used to kill "a whole lot of people". You can start banning everything....even the UK has started to ban kitchen knives....it never ends.
kncook50 3 years ago
a car could potentially kill 100, but because not designed to kill 100 easily, its not a convenient killing machine, and is unlikely to give a killer chance to commit mass murder. High power gun has been specifically designed to kill as many people as quickly and easily as poss. Better a crazed knife man, who is eventually overpowered by those around him, than an AK47 crazy man? Yes -UK does ban all weapons- even knives from street. Think we should be able to carry spray 4 defence, but no.
geoffart 3 years ago
having said that, we still have guns over here within reach of criminal gangs - you cant stop that with gun control. It only works in stopping that one nutter who loses it and goes on a killing spree. The last bad killing we had was dunblane, where a school of young children was targetted. I think that was th early ninties.
geoffart 3 years ago
ARE YOU ON DRUGS?
No, I don't think you are, but the mass killers are.
So why don't you want banned the Psychotropic cocktails of anti-depressants that they were prescribed?
chewbaca1989 3 years ago
There must be a way to stop the deadliest weapons getting into the hands of people who should not handle them. A criminal with an intention of using his gun to carry out a robbery is likely to get a gun through connections, and may kill 1 or 2 people, but a mad man who has lost track of reality (a loner usually), and who would normally be unlikely to have access to gun could kill 50+ people. Therefore gun restrictions that somehow allow responsible people to keep guns could save lots of people.
geoffart 3 years ago
How many mass killings we're there before Psychiatric drugs? You could count them on your hand.
Hello, drugs.
I rest my case.
Drugs
chewbaca1989 3 years ago
Most worst examples dont seem to involve drugs: Take dunblane killing in the UK: I dont think the killer used drugs, he was just sick. He ran sinister young boy clubs, and when the parents removed their kids, he came into the school and shot them. Then the two that killed James bolger: they found him and took him onto a rail track and threw rocks at him until he was dead. killer were aged 10! They were not drugs users either, but would you trust them with an AK47, and a bag full of ammo?
geoffart 3 years ago
The kids are put on Ridalin at young ages, the medical records are "sealed". The mass killings were not done prior to 70's, less gun control then.
chewbaca1989 3 years ago
There has been a culture change: the glorification of killing and guns, especially a lot of role playing games involving killing with guns (where your the bad guy!). I remember reading about a 6yr old boy (or about that age) who grabbed the gun from a police officer in the US, he shot him and then stole his car. When he was caught, he said he was just trying to play GTA!! He'd done it loads of times before and never got in trouble for it.
geoffart 3 years ago
BS!!! that is just a rumor or something you made up!!!! do research and you will find that there is not a single study that shows any link between real violence in children and violent videogames!!
xXCRABBXx 2 years ago
It is impossible to do research into video games and violence. it would only truelly affect a small percentage of the popullation anyway. My main focus is on guns, not video games. The people who are truelly affected by the video games may already be disturbed.
geoffart 2 years ago
The true sad fact is that there are very sick people, who exist out in every country, and there is no quick fix - they will always be there in a free society, and a high powered weapon in their hands is the worst combination to have. But, then it comes down to whats more important to Americans: If gun rights override this huge safety issue, then the whole argument is a non-starter. Its cultural, and sometimes culture is so important that it should not be taken away - so I can understand that.
geoffart 3 years ago
geoffart,
You can't legislate stupidity. The sooner you socialists realize this, the better. And the sooner you realize that it is not up to you to regulate the lives of others, the better.
Sure, tragedies will occur, but with freedom of choice, comes risk. I would rather be accidentally shot by my neighbor while he is exercising his freedom of choice than to deprive myself (and others) of that choice through some lame attempt to legislate stupidity.
Let's educate, not legislate!
EmitRelevart 2 years ago 2
your not allowed to own a personal nuclear weapon. so there is no such thing as unlimited freedom when it comes to the right to bare arms. I think there is a difference between a gun you could use to defend yourself form someone, and a weapon someone could use for mass murder.
geoffart 2 years ago
And there again are the ridiculous comparisons of typical gun control advocates. If we can ban the right for citizens to own nuclear weapons, then fuzzy logic dictates we should be able to ban their guns as well. How such a correlation is ever made in the first place is beyond the scope of most reasonable citizens.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
wrong idea: I'm saying, somewhere, someone has to make the decision that the destructive power of a weapon might make it unsuitable for untrained general population in almost unrestricted sales. I don't believe that applies to all guns. The weapons that your forefathers gave the right to own are not the high powered weapons of today. The marker of what is allowed has to be placed somewhere, and that's what I'm saying. Not saying nucs are banned, therefore so should guns. that's a simple view.
geoffart 2 years ago
geoffart,
What your logic tends to ignore is that criminals hell bent on committing mass murder with such weapons will obtain those weapons regardless of any ban since criminals don't obey gun laws - period.
Furthermore, our forefathers weren't talking about hunting or defending oneself from thy neighbor, but from thy own government. They were referring to militias. It would be awfully hard to defend ones liberty (and yours) with the little handgun you would permit us to carry.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago 2
that's true: real crims with an agenda and connections will always get guns. But, mass in-descriminant murder is rarely committed by conventional criminals though. A criminal with an agenda, regardless of how nasty he is, he is unlikely to walk into a shopping market and fire indiscriminately. He will specificly target people who stand in his way. Whereas most of the big killers are loners who don't have connections. The university student who loses his mind is an example: they're the worst!
geoffart 2 years ago
geoffart,
But that is exactly the type of person who will be determined enough to find the weapon through any means necessary in order to carry out his crime. He is obviously not a law biding citizen.
You don't need "connections" to buy illegal firearms. Many news reporters have demonstrated this over and over by simply going to a specific area of town and buying an illegal weapon off the street. It's no different than buying drugs - people know the areas of town to get it if they want it.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
hard to walk up to a gang, gain a gun. Well, in the UK, all the shootings, when they happen, normally the result of mistake n identity or someone aiming for someone, but hitting someone else. evidence doesnt support loners with personality disorders travel the rough end of a town, approach, asking for guns. Media form connections, and I have seen this with drugs too. The last loner personality problem type killing in the UK was dunblane, because of relaxed gun laws that were since tightened.
geoffart 2 years ago
For what its worth, I can understand why an American might want a gun, and I do have experience firing guns myself (as a cadet, in a military training enviroment). But the potential killing power of such weapons is too great to allow every single person to handle unrestricted.
geoffart 2 years ago
You're missing the point. If guns were banned, the loner mass killer would still be able to obtain his weapon of choice. It is irrelevant whether they have in the past.
The result of the UK gun ban has been out of control knife killings and criminals who can still obtain firearms while citizens are left defenceless.
The UK is now a police state so it's too late for you. You have no weapons left to defend what little liberties you have left. We don't want to wait until it's too late.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
knife crime happens: someone whose got psycological problems goes mad, it results in the death of one, maybe two people, the knife man is overpowered or people get away and police arrive and get him. Remeber, I'm mainly talking about high powered weapons, not standard handguns. The thought that anybody can get hold of an AK-47 is not good. You'll have to agree, there is a big difference between the killing power of a knife and an AK-47? But, yes I think they disarmed the public too much here.
geoffart 2 years ago
at the end of the day, you have thugs who dont need weapons to target old people, and taking weapons off everyone is more likely to deter the law following public than the thug, whose got very little to lose. But again, the main gun threat isnt the gun point robber or gangster, but the guy that loses all track of reality and goes on a killing spree. with an AK-47, he can take 50+ people with him; with a knife, he could take two; with a handgun, maybe he takes 10 people before the rest flee.
geoffart 2 years ago
I don't know why you are still trying to explain the difference between an AK-47 and a handgun or a knife? It's irrelevant.
Regardless of what weapons you ban, if someone wants to go kill 50 people in a school etc they can get that AK-47 on the street. You only ban law biding citizens.
Bombs are banned, but that didn't stop terrorist from blowing up trains in London, did it? Guns are banned from planes and stealing planes is illegal, but that didn't stop 9/11, did it?
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
the terrorists had training in Pakistan. They were serious terrorists with connections and training. There was one loner type terrorist (with psychological problems, who you might compare to the guys who do school shootings) who tried to make a bomb once actually, and all he did was injure himself and get arrested, because he had no connections and he didnt know how to make a bomb. Same principal applies to guns. 9/11 were even more highly trained and connected than london bombers.
geoffart 2 years ago
Training has nothing to do with it. Anyone with no knowledge can make a bomb. There are instructions all over the net on how to do this.
The simple fact is, that banning something does not stop those who are intent on obtaining said banned item from doing so. Period.
And yes, the average person does need to be able to buy weapons such as AK-47's - see my post above regarding the real threat. Again, you aren't going to intimidate your government with sticks or handguns.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
Many of the terrorists have failed to make effective explosives in the UK. We had those docs that tried to blow Glasgow airport and only succeeded in BBQ themselves, we had the bloke that blew his face up in a pub toilette and other failed attempts. We even had one group, even with training, allowed their bomb material to break down, rendering the bombs useless. This would suggest its not easy - luckily! However, unfortunatly for our troops, groups in afghan and iraq have no such problems.
geoffart 2 years ago
And you're right - the main threat isn't a robber or gangster. It isn't even the loner sicko who will kill 20 ppl at a school - the main threat is government. That is why the 2nd Amendment exists.
People of the UK should know this from experience - that if the ppl are disarmed, the next step is a police state where gov (instead of the ppl) will have all the power. Total power corrupts totally. There needs to be equilibrium.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
I think you have to accept that gun control saves lots of lives, but then debate whether free gun ownership is important enough to keep it going. Maybe it is? I wont criticise that view. As I said, we haven't had 1 mass shooting that I can remember since dunblane killing, after gun ownership was tightened further. But just because something saves lives, doesn't always mean its good for a country. We would save lives if everyone drove at 20mph everywhere. It depends on other factors.
geoffart 2 years ago
No, gun control does not save lives. There are numerous statistics to support this, including in the UK.
watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
Even people in the UK want their guns back.
watch?v=mKdBxpKqUvs
The gov loves citizens like you who will help them to disarm the public making it very easy for the gov to impose their will on the ppl instead of the other way around.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
No, I honestly can say with certainty that people in the UK think totally differently about guns than in the US. If you read a news forum or watch UK news when there is a shooting, you'll see the attitude to guns is totally different to the US (I'm not saying it's better, but its different). We dont like police to even have them (which I think is going to have to happen). I can say that honestly, the UK public dont want people to have guns over here. People feel strongly about that.
geoffart 2 years ago
And that's exactly why you have few liberties left to defend. You are powerless against your gov and they now have all the control. They can do whatever they want, and you are powerless to stop them.
I suggest you watch this video of your countrymen:
watch?v=mKdBxpKqUvs
The biggest demonstration of its kind in UK history - the ppl want their liberties back and realize the only way to get that is to get their guns back.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
Firearm related crimes in the UK have increased overall by almost 40% since the gun ban was introduced. This certainly does not support your theory that gun bans = less gun crime.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
I dont know where you got the figure that gun crime increased in the UK by 40% since the gun ban came about? The UK has had a gun control since 1824 . If you are comparing gun crime pre 1824, there could be all sorts of reasons why less people might be shot in 1824 than in the year 2009. Did you really mean that, or did you just mean tighter restrictions for gun clubs that came about after the dunblane killing? The fire arms act came in 1920, and again cant compare crime then and now.
geoffart 2 years ago
Why don't you watch the video I provided a link to and you'll find out where the stats come from.
It seems like you don't want to investigate this at all. You just blindly insist your position is correct and assume to represent the opinion of your countrymen when in fact this is not the case. Watch the video and see what your countrymen really think about gun control instead of simply stating your position is also their position.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
I think MPs (same thing as seniors) would disagree with that view at the moment. They are getting a pounding from joe public over their expenses over here. Don't know if its been on US news over there, but its rocked parliament to its foundations. We have MPs coming out and paying back huge sums of money that they took unfairly: you might take that as proof that we don't need weapons to get our point across. best way to keep liberty is freedom of information: that's the best defensive weapon.
geoffart 2 years ago
and the very strange thing is that this hunting protest wasn't much to do with guns at all; I remember it well! It was all about the right to hunt foxes using dogs in the traditional way. The reason it was banned was because it was thought a cruel way for a fox to die (to be ripped to pieces by dogs). Of course, this stopped the long tradition of certain people who say its part of their community tradition to hunt foxes in that way (passed for generation to generation).
geoffart 2 years ago
I saw it. If you take the whole UK, your bound to see some people who want guns. The fact is, gun control was introduced in the 19th century; gun bans were introduced after ww1; they didn't like the idea of guns being around. Vid makes it look like its something new, isn't, and if the gov came out tomorrow and said guns were legalised, there would be protests on the street. look at wiki-pedia on UK gun control, and you will see, we have no main gun lobby. utube wont allow links unfortunately.
geoffart 2 years ago
Was little said about guns then. rally you see is the country protest hunting ban: came in due to animal cruelty laws. Honestly, this country's people don't see guns in the way that video tries to suggest. There is no gun debate, and legalisation of guns is unthinkable to the UK public. Not just trying to make things agree with my view. Vid is interesting, but if its suggesting handguns were recently banned, its very misleading to you Americans. I would question the agenda of the vid.
geoffart 2 years ago
You see, the guy who comes out and says "since handguns were banned there has been a 40% increase in crime": Don't know what he's talking about. Maybe he's talking about the states; a state that banned guns, and its been made to sound like the UK? Because what he says doesn't mean anything relevant in the UK, unless he's talking about a tightening of the rules for specific groups (maybe farmers?). Even if he means that, it doesn't make sense, because there aren't enough people in that group.
geoffart 2 years ago
vid showing protest against the fox hunting ban (there was very strong feeling), making it seem like its a protest: lots of British that have recently had their guns taken off them! Then, reporter goes to a few people (at least one of them American) and ask them if they want guns? But, my dad born 1947, throught his life guns been banned, and my grandad, 1922, and same throughout his life. so its not new. my grandad tried to bring sten-gun back from WWII (souvenir), but got taken off him - lol.
geoffart 2 years ago
1)
Well, you just proved my point about you discounting statistics simply because they don't support your position.
"Defence Studies at King's College in London says that handguns were used in 3,685 offences last year compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40 per cent." Based on government figures.
Source - telegraph. co. uk, BBC news
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
2)
Even your own Scotland Yard acknowledges the increase and suggests the 1997 Act has failed.
"The increase in the use of handguns by criminals since the implementation of the 1997 Act clearly raises important questions for policy-makers considering further controls on legally-held firearms." - John Bryan, former head of the firearms intelligence unit at New Scotland Yard
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
3)
They are all wrong, and you're right. Okay. It's clear that, like any other socialist liberal with their head in the sand, no matter what statistics are presented, you will continue to deny/ignore them in order to continue with your agenda based on personal belief rather than actual facts and logic.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago
they're not wrong. 97 act not setup to stop criminal gun deaths; was supposed to stop another dunblane. havent had anoth school shooting since 97. There're different types of gun deaths: the worst being the mass indescriminant killings that are carried out by people like in school shootings, we had more crims with guns, yes, but no mass shootings.
watch?v=dExPZzD3KG8
this video tells the story of what brought about the 97 act you mention: dunblane killing. It comes in different parts.
geoffart 2 years ago
I believe the 97 act is about tighter shooting sports controls, not mass gun ownership control. small minority of the population take part in these activities, so I cant see that act could be responsible for a rise, even if deaths happen to increase, because of the small numbers involved. The act wasn't designed to reduce overall deaths, it was to prevent dunblane from happening again. He's saying it didn't reduce overall gun deaths - which is in general correct! We haven't had a mass shooting.
geoffart 2 years ago
are you saying guns were legal and readily avaliable in the UK pre 1997??
geoffart 2 years ago
My God, man. You haven't even read the 1997 Act. How can you debate something or even have a position being so uninformed? This is typical of gun control advocates.
The 1997 Act will do nothing to stop another Dunblane incident. The gun bans, both in the UK and US, have done nothing to reduce gun related crime. Statistics show the opposite is true.
If you want to continue to support something while ignoring facts, and puts you at more risk, knock yourself out.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago 6
I believe the last similar event was in 1987 in Hungerford. Just because a mass killing hasn't occurred in the last decade does not mean the 1997 Act has prevented it. It can't. It just means that some whacko hasn't yet done so.
If you honestly believe that someone couldn't do this again (even with a handgun), then you're living in a fantasy world.
What you fail to realize is that gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. Period.
EmitRelevart 2 years ago 4
read it: before the ban, you still had to be a member of a shooting club and own a gun licence. Weren't allowed high power weapons. Could never go to a gun shop, buy a weapon here.
less ways someone can get a gun, less ways a person is likely to have an opportunity use one in this way: that's logic.
a person has to break the law to have guns, they are less likely to have them to hand, when they go mad.
Americans feel its a liberty you need, and I respect that strong tradition.
geoffart 2 years ago
actually, one thing worth mentioning is the thing that has recently allowed guns to increase in the UK: you see, our governments are very bad at making laws for some reason. They went to all the trouble of banning guns for sports, yet due to stupidity, there is a legal loop-hole that allows people to buy replica weapons (which are real guns of course). Now, these weapons are easily made live again, and have been. So, thats the reason why a lot of guns are getting back on the streets.
geoffart 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
we recently had a case of a bloke turning up at a gun manufacturer and ask for some super high powered sub machine guns, because he was apparently working on the new james bond movie. And without too many questions, he got these weapons (that were made safe) and with a bit of DIY, he made these into super leathal weapons and started selling them on the streets! Well, naturally people started getting killed. Eventually he was tracked down and nicked. I dont know if they've tightened it(hope so).
geoffart 2 years ago
Another gun rights restriction passed in nazifornia.
1s23d 3 years ago
this makes me so mad. Why don't people get it. That once guns are outlawed we take the chance of losing our freedom.
jmfcg5 3 years ago
Damn, even liberals don't like these people. They must really suck.
sniper6081 3 years ago 2
Wow, this pretty much sums up every piece of gun legislation from the past few decades.
Nice to see advocates exposed for who they are. Thank God DC won't have to put up with this crap again.
Alternate2GOP 3 years ago
just try a total gun ban like DC. then you can have a 40% spike in gun crime overnight like them
recon24d 3 years ago 4
Well spoken.
Txman1996 2 years ago
WOW i can't believe they got the black chick to change her mind. you just saw all her integrity disappear, out of nowhere; she had seemed so smart. this shows how SELFISH, greedy and slimy pretty much anyone in government is. Wholy Fuck. Great video
sillydillydokieo 3 years ago 3
I believe that this shows plainly the kind of self-interested, over ambitious, political maneuvering that leads to useless or harmful gun control legislation, as well as the entire spectrum of silly safety dance regulations and other liberty limits. Thankfully, I don't live near this locality or state. Good luck to all of you who do, looks like you'll need it.
Griz806 3 years ago 5
This council woman is awesome! Way to go! Very rational and logical refutation of useless feel good gun control legislation.
akkrauta 3 years ago 4
Just one more way the government can use our money to restrict our way of life. Thank God that I hail from the great state of South Carolina. :)
divebomber93 3 years ago 2
Amen to that, I'm from SC as well.
DAusc90 3 years ago
Damn I hate living here in California. I mean at the end of the day all these people really want is to ban anything that can be used as a weapon. Whats next?? If a kid kills another with a hammer, do we ban those too? WTF!
ghostridermjs 3 years ago 15
I cannot believe my eyes. Am I reading this right?
Despite the fact that they cannot find any supporting evidence to show causality in regards to effectively dropping any crime rates whatsoever, and despite the fact that they cannot reveal any progressive utility to said laws in other jurisdictions, THEY STILL PROCEED TO DRAFT THE ORDINANCE ANYWAY?
What kind of banana tinpot republic are they running? I feel like I missed something here.
peckerwood321 3 years ago 13
Bingo. As Ms. Hammond states near the end of the video: "...[Gun Control] has been a very powerful tool in moving people to other elected offices..." Yes, you are missing something here. We all are. Common sense and focus from elected officials. Gun-owners make politically juicy punching bags. Hold suspect all who promote gun control because they are lying to you.
ammoguide 3 years ago 2
ATTENTION GUN OWNERS:
Never give an inch! Never trade away any of your rights! It is that simple!
FreeMilitia 3 years ago 8
By the way, that group has been watching too many lethal weapon movies. I'm not American, but I doubt that's what L.A is really like.
quuaa1 3 years ago 3
What is it with American TV? All I ever see on documentaries with video clips of American news stations is all these "new dangers" and "threats" pumping people full of fear of something that doesn't exist. Ordinary people get a hold of a weapon, turn into Charles Manson, kill 50 people, then return back to normal when they set it down? COME ON...
quuaa1 3 years ago 2
They should pass laws that get rid of parole and plea bargining instead of passing more gun laws.
daveythewavey19 3 years ago 3
Someone posted a comment to the effect "I support the right to own guns but the issue is simple - just report the gun stolen." I accidentally deleted your post. Sorry. I'll reply to this one with my response anyway.
ammoguide 3 years ago
No one disagrees that stolen guns should be reported. The issue is PENALIZING INNOCENT GUN-OWNERS WHO FAIL TO FOR INNOCENT REASONS (like not even knowing t5he gun was taken.) So, where gun-owners would normally be EAGER to work with law enforcement (to help get it back), this stupid law make them NOT COOPERATE because they are possible subjects of prosecution. THIS BAD LAW BECAUSE HONEST GUN OWNERS REPORT THEIR GUNS STOLEN NORMALLY! DISHONEST ONES WON'T REGARDLESS.
ammoguide 3 years ago
Another problem with this law is IT PENALIZES VICTIMS OF CRIME. An honest gun-owner like you or me is first made a victim by having the gun stolen, then again BY GOVERNMENT because you may not have reported the gun fast enough to suit your local politician. You have to think critically about these things and not jump at what you think sounds good. That's how much bad law is passed - by politicians preying on your emotions.
ammoguide 3 years ago
Lastly, pay attention to the video! In places that have passed this law, THEY DO NOT ENFORCE IT. NOWHERE. All it does it put gun owners at risk and advances the careers of politicians who don't give a fig for your rights or whether you ever suffer a home invasion. WATCH THE VIDEO - IT'S *THEIR* WORDS, NOT MINE OR NRA'S!
ammoguide 3 years ago
Note that some say this law is needed to counteract "straw purchases". DON'T BE FOOLED. It it ALREADY illegal for someone to buy a gun legally, then give it to someone else without going through an FFL, which tells the state, which applies the waiting period. IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO DO THIS. So, if it's already criminal, WHY EXPAND THE LAW TO GO AFTER HONEST GUN-OWNERS - those who have been a victim of crime once already by getting their property stolen?
ammoguide 3 years ago
@ammoguide Accually, it is only illegal to legally buy a firearm and then give it to someone else if you have a resonable suspition that they are not authorized to have a firearm, such as if they are an ex-felon. I understand the laws are....well unlawfull out there in California.
Jesses001 1 year ago
Another one of the 20,000 gun control laws that have an inverse affect on crime rates.
flyboy339745 4 years ago 5
From my COLD - DEAD - HANDS !!!
waluum 4 years ago 6
+1 to that.
metallmayhem 3 years ago 3
Dear Ammoguide. I understand that the anti-gun movement is uneducated on the subject, illogical and usually wrong. I just am trying to point out to people that the reason for the demand for the hugh amount of underground guns is rooted in the war on drugs. The NRA is not the reason for california's violence problem as you and I both know
3meninaroom 4 years ago 2
No, of course not. The legal use of guns is never a problem. We surely agree more than disagree. But I believe the criminal use of guns is dwarfed by the legal and proper use by those such as you and I. So the criminal demand, in relative terms, is correspondingly small. If it was cut in half today it wouldn't slow Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer down one bit.
ammoguide 4 years ago
Chuck Schumer sucks. I live in the same state and he dosent have a clue. It was a real pain in the ass for me to get my full carry license here. The Empire state "may-issue" system is set up almost identical with California's. It was not fun trying to get one. I hope to change it but all we have is 3meninaroom for a government.
3meninaroom 4 years ago
California has very draconian gun laws and drug laws. This is where the problem is. They need to reform their laws at the state level. End the drug war and institute an objective "shall issue" system
3meninaroom 4 years ago
Gun Control Laws and Drug Laws are not related and should NOT be discussed as though they were. Law-abiding gun owners are careful to obey the law and mixing these issues politically feeds into the prejudices of the ill-informed.
ammoguide 4 years ago
Dear 3meninaroom, I accidentally deleted your previous reply. Sorry. But please consider that the anti-gun movement operates independantly of any other cause. Whether America had a drup usage problem or not, whether there were a War-On-Drugs or not, gun prohibitionists would still be trying to disarm the public.
ammoguide 4 years ago
They took the handguns away from the legal owners in England and Austrailia. Then they took their sporting rifles and shotguns. Violent crime is on a massive upswing in those countries now. It's going to happen in the US just as sure as idiots keep electing liberal socialists into office.
MIT1369 4 years ago
How the hell can you enforce a law that requires citizens who could potentially break the law to enforce it?
If I realized I lost a firearm and didn't report it in 2 days, I'm not going to say a word to the police.
GOPpersona 4 years ago
Pathetic. I am ashamed that I live here in CA.
jpfoodsaver 4 years ago
I think it would be fair enough to report a gun stolen I love my gun but dont want to be linked to someone else's murder
jubbles2343 4 years ago
Law abiding citizens will report a stolen weapon. What this law does is make a criminal out of you if you don't report it stolen within 48 hrs. What happens if you are away on vacation when it gets stolen or you don't notice for a few days?
TwoTyres 4 years ago
touche but i think it means 48hours of you finding out
jubbles2343 4 years ago
The ordinance says withing 48 hours of when you REASONABLY should have become aware of when it was missing. So who defines what's reasonable? When an ordinance uses ambiguous terms like that, it's just bad law, plain bad law.
ammoguide 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2008 RON PAUL!!
oldtimeraider 4 years ago
Liberalism is defined by its lack of common sense.
CNC295 4 years ago 3
It's not that Liberals are stupid, it's that they know a lot about what isn't true.
jpfoodsaver 4 years ago 2
Why do these people bitch a very big chunk of guns in california are probably bought is states like Nevada and Arizona. I live in arizona, I can get anything up to semi auto and handguns with no liscence.
fatefinger 4 years ago
You don't need a "license" to own a gun. Perhaps for identification, which is a good thing, but not to own a firearm. The nice thing about living in our Republic is that are constitutional laws cannot be readily taken. A democracy, well thats just two wolves and a sheep discussing whats for dinner.
CNC295 4 years ago
Oh, I know you don't need a license for regular guns but you do for like full auto or so called "destructive weapons" (class 3 out here, I don't know if it's the same everywhere else). All you need is to be 18 for rifles, shotguns, ect. and 21 for handguns. I'd love to get somthing like a full auto auto AR15 or an AA12 full auto shotgun, but you do need a license for those.
fatefinger 4 years ago
Hehe, a gun is an equalizer. In states that are pro gun control that don't like honest people to stand on equal ground. Also you can buy fully automatics without a liscense to.
edicol 4 years ago
Hmm... Well I guess it's different out here. I can get a concealed weapons permit no prob. But you need a liscence for an automatic. Like I said a few of the weapons I want are military only, or as far as I know they are.
fatefinger 4 years ago
Most of my family lives in california, 2 of them have concealed weapons permits and guns to go along with those permits, i don't know how they can put up with this kind of crap.
lespaulman4686 4 years ago
Vote Ron Paul for President. Ron Paul will fight for all of our Constitutional rights. Google Ron Paul, register Republican, vote in Primary. Ron Paul cured my apathy...
craigslist04 4 years ago
As a native Californian, I am glad that I now live in Texas. I think semi-autos are now effectively outlawed by 2010 because of microstamping.
Bizartch 4 years ago
lol sueing the gun companys
how stupid are these people...
what about tobaco comps????????how many people get killed by cars,cigs,bats,pipes,hammers,????? ALOT more then guns
do you see shootings at gun shows? or shooting ranges?? nope becuase gun control dont work
stop trying to ban guns and go home and be a better parnent THATS WHAT STOPS CRIME
dan16802 4 years ago 2
Glad you like the video. "how many people get killed by cars,cigs,bats,pipes,hammers?" I've tried to address that issue with a special page. Since I don't seem to be able to post a URL here, please Google "Mike Haas Life Clock".
ammoguide 4 years ago
Great video.
Brugality 4 years ago
What a great law this is. I'd love to go on vacation for a month, come back home and find my house ransacked and the cops waiting for ME. I'd love 30 felony convictions punishing me for being stolen from.
spraynpray 4 years ago
No offense to Californians. Of course.
michael45680 4 years ago
GUN CONTROL! That's why California is the safest place in America! LOL! Sometimes I wish all the libs would go to CA and the others can evacuate. A political science project of sorts. Then they can unleash all their radical ideas and finally show America how it's really done. Wouldn't that be awesome?! We'll just have to stand guard around CA to make sure we keep it contained. LOL!
michael45680 4 years ago
I used to live there. I feel the same way. The libs can take it and run it into hell. They would be happy with that anyway.
About 3 years before I knew I was going to leave I just stooped caring about what was going on there, its wasted energy. There is no way CA is ever going to be able to recover, well unless a 10.5 hits (like in the made for TV movie) and levels LA and SF!
GotIt123 4 years ago
GotIt123
"There is no way CA is ever going to be able to recover, well unless a 10.5 hits (like in the made for TV movie) and levels LA and SF!"
Well there is always that hope.
greentractors 4 years ago
Gun control is good... for people like Hitler and Stalin who wanted to disarm their populations to make it easy for them to torture rape and kill their people by the millions. But hey... Who are we to question the gun control "gods" of our US legislative government? But they would never lead us astray for power or money...
Governments are the leading cause of unnatural human death above anything else!
Don't believe me... Just let history repeat itself.
1NWOMD 4 years ago
OMFG ... how does our government work?
ibchu1688 4 years ago
That's a sick and disgusting way to further your political agenda. Lately it seems too many politicians are claiming to be 'tough on crime' but are really only supporting firearm restrictions that keep lawful citizens defenseless against the criminals that these laws protect. It's a shame that politics in this country focus on passing 'feel good' legislature instead of actually doing something about the problems.
AreThereNoMoreNames 4 years ago
That's how all of California's politics works from San Francisco to Los Angeles, from issues on schools to issues on health care. It's never about facts, it's always about agendas.
bayareababe2004 4 years ago
To make smart guns is the best idea to prevent weak minded clowns from playing with fire
Grandeur001 4 years ago
"Smart" guns are another issue ENTIRELY. And remember, digital electronics fail/can be hacked, batteries go dead, and what does EMP do again? Gets dropped in water? Shame to have your gun CRASH just when you need it, eh?
ammoguide 4 years ago
"Smart" guns, ironically are one of the stupidest ideas gun-control advocates have ever addressed or brought up.
jubeigh13 2 years ago
Personally this is necessary. I am not a Gun control kook. I have a CCW I and I CARRY. But you have some out there who legally buy a gun and for one reason or another "lend" it to someone. The person shoots someone. they find the gun and trace it to the gun owner who says that they forgot to report it stolen.
dantej32 4 years ago
This is NOT necessary - straw purchases are already illegal and has NOTHING to do with lost or stolen guns. And what about the person that never realized their gun was stolen? You simply victimize the victims twice. Once by a thief, then by government.
ammoguide 4 years ago
She nailed it by referring to this as feel-good legislature...yet it was still passed?
1950884 4 years ago
They say their are more guns than people in the U.S
The guns are here and making laws to make guns illegal will only prevent law abiding citizens from defending thereselves against people who sneer at laws. "criminals" Nobody is going to disarm me, I dont care what future laws are passed. Nodody is going to tell me that im not allowed to defend myself. Its my natural right.
Madmar25 4 years ago
You don't need to watch this video. Here is what is is: Let's make an ordinance that will turn the victim of burglary into a criminal. Here is the proof that this ordinance will not affect violent crime. But let's do it anyway. Oh yeah. Let's not even THINK about ordinances that DO help reduce violent crime, because we don't want to be voted out of office. If we are lucky, this will be adopted at the state level.
acoow 4 years ago
Sorry but I watched the video anyway. I agree with your assessment too.
visitor4400 4 years ago
It will turn victims of burglary into criminals IF THEY DO NOT REPORT the stolen firearm... am I the only pro second amendment person here that thinks that NOT even bothering to MENTION that a gun has passed from your hand to that of a CRIMINAL... IS CRIMINAL, and should be considered as such?!
RussellsParadox 4 years ago
You are completely missing the point. Yes, right now, gun-owners are almost always eager to work with law enforcement to recover their firearms. Who wouldn;t be? But this law gives gun owners a REASON not to report it - one becomes a possible target of prosecution yourself if some beauraucrat thinks you didn't report it "in time". So here is a law that makes an innocent gun-owner who has been a victim of theft now need an attorney, too. Now THAT'S immoral.
ammoguide 4 years ago
See my other comment... I do in fact agree.
But is it not immoral to leave a stolen gun unreported?
RussellsParadox 4 years ago
This is just great. By passing this measure they have just made a victim into a criminal. I wonder if they have similar ordinances about reporting the theft of automobiles, baseball bats, or hammers?
Gun control isn't about guns...it's about control.
CueBall909 4 years ago
*if they don't report it.*
...that's an important detail. Try not to leave it out.
RussellsParadox 4 years ago
If you don't like where your livin', and you would like to have a fighting chance, Texas may be the last place for you folks. Love to have ya!
Cuttingtorch 4 years ago
You're only free if your open to see
Without a flag and a gun there's no liberty! (Stuck Mojo, "Feel it Coming Down")
Skurges 4 years ago
Well, at least Lauren Hammond is ONE honest person on that council. She really was telling it like it is, and was very subtle (perhaps TOO subtle) in laying plain that gun control laws just don't do anything beneficial. She really called them on using gun control as a springboard to higher office -- THAT'S the goal of these scumbags.
ornithoid 4 years ago
So after no one was able to say that this thing would do one iota of good, or have any effect whatsoever; after no one was able to point out a single other jurisdiction that had actually used such an ordinance in a prosecution; after repeated clarification that this is a feel-good, do-nothing idea... These MORONS actually voted to write this ordinance anyway. Great.
ornithoid 4 years ago
what a waste, but thats what government is good at. GET THE CRIMINALS OFF THE STREET,ELIMINATE REVOLVING DOORS FOR CRIMINALS.
utahdonnie 4 years ago
The reason they drafted the ordinance, even though they know it's ineffectual, it that many people(anti-gunners) feel that GUNS ARE BAD EVIL DEVICES and shouldn't be in society.
rwbazillion 4 years ago
MOLON LABE, lol. Gun control isn't crime control, its controlling the guns that the law abiding seek. Do they want to ban them because they(anti-gunners) dont like them, or because they think it reduces crimes.
If the antis answer yes to either, they are wrong.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit... Does this still stand? It dosen't look like it.
beneIIi762 4 years ago
aeonsago777, most of the people I know in my neighborhood and many in my family are Democrats and all are pro-2nd Amendment and anti-gun control. It's like abortion--it's not politically correct to say you've had one, but lots of Republicans have. The leading Democratic candidates are anti-guns--and the leading Republican ones aren't much better. We need to educate members of both parties.
memerider 4 years ago
Guns kill people like forks made rosie odonnell fat. Ban forks end obesity!!!! haha
gary870 4 years ago
lol, thats fking awesome! couldn't have said it better myself. 8P
enotdetcelfer 4 years ago
And The US is less liberal than Canada....I...hate...gun control.
Russoft 4 years ago