A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked a California law that would have banned carrying firearms in most public places, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and deprives people of their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones.

The law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September was set to take effect Jan. 1. It would have prohibited people from carrying concealed guns in 26 places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos. The ban would apply whether the person has a permit to carry a concealed weapon or not. One exception would be for privately owned businesses that put up signs saying people are allowed to bring guns on their premises.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You did not demonstrate your claim as I requested. It’s not my job to name proposals to back up your claim. If you can’t back it up yourself, that’s not my problem.

    No, they are a problem but not one that can be solved with any of the current proposals.

    Any of the current proposals? Not a single one from any person on any position on guns? So we just have to live with school kids getting slaughtered repeatedly unlike every other country on the planet?

    • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Guns are a red herring in this. None of the current proposals with any sort of support from the democrats will make any sort of a difference here. The issue isn’t the guns but they focus on them and deliberately encourage them to create emotional responses to try and ban them. Semi auto bans, magazine capacities, UBCs; none of them do a damn thing to prevent or mitigate mass shootings. They are literally just power grabs. There is tons that can be done to prevent and mitigate them but the alt left wants them to happen so they can ban guns so they will continue happening.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        None of the current proposals with any sort of support from the democrats will make any sort of a difference here.

        Prove it.

        The issue isn’t the guns but they focus on them and deliberately encourage them to create emotional responses to try and ban them.

        Prove it.

        Semi auto bans, magazine capacities, UBCs; none of them do a damn thing to prevent or mitigate mass shootings.

        Prove it.

        There is tons that can be done to prevent and mitigate them but the alt left wants them to happen so they can ban guns so they will continue happening.

        Prove it.

        I have no reason to acknowledge any of those claims as valid. Just declaring them doesn’t make them true.

        • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Prove it? They are all law in various states and countries with zero to negative correlation. Gun control and crime, to include mass shooting does not have any statistical correlation that is actually mathematically valid which is why grabber groups stray so far from the scientific method for their “studies” and rely so heavily on emotion.

          They deliberately encourage them. This is a known and proven fact.

          https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117259

          You aren’t arguing, you’re just claiming you’re right and pretending that because of that you don’t need to justify shit. I can go in depth on any of these. The onus is on you to actually suggest a difference rather than falsely assuming your position is already secured.

          Magazine bans for example overwhelmingly hinder defensive uses over offensive ones. Anyone that played the original Call of Duty Modern Warfare was taught this in the tutorial when they yelled “SWITCH TO YOUR PISTOL, IT’S FASTER THAN RELOADING.” An empty magazine is simply a “failure to fire drill” and is treated as such. You retreat to cover and clear the weapon. It is only an issue if you are cornered and alone. For an attacker, the easiest way to mitigate it is to bring multiple weapons, which high body count shooters do. When you are the attacker you get to select the time and place of the attack as well as set the pace of each encounter. When I go to a movie theater to watch a movie, I have a single pistol on me because carrying multiple guns isn’t practically feasible day to day. If I was told that on a specific day at a specific time and specific place I would be a in a shootout, you can bet your ass I would have multiple guns and screw concealment; this is exactly what cable news shooters do. At Virginia Tech he fired 170 rounds from 17 magazines. Many of them held more than 10 rounds but he never needed to reload under duress because he chose his own pace from room to room with opportune reloads in between. The only person that is functionally limited by a magazine capacity restriction is the person that did not choose to be in a shootout at that point in time and does not have control over the location and pacing of the fight.

          I can do this for virtually every single proposal you have. I can also give counter proposals that can actually address some of the concerns like with UBCs but nothing I say is new. It has all been proposed before but rejected by the Democrats for not going too far enough. They don’t want to solve the problem or stop shootings; they want to ban guns. Gun control has and will always be about control.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You aren’t arguing, you’re just claiming you’re right and pretending that because of that you don’t need to justify shit.

            Um… that’s literally what you’re doing. You are not backing up your declarations.

            • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I just did with a link to a peer reviewed study and a detailed explanation of a common gun control proposal. Try again.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Which claim do you think that proves? Because I asked you to prove multiple claims and, as far as I can tell, that was not one of them.

                • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That the liberal media is deliberately causing them to promote their anti gun views. CNN has way more blood on their hands than the NRA ever has.

                  Name a single proposal you think will prevent or mitigate shootings. I’ll wait.