Gun bans and workplace violence - (Ohio State target rich environment)

[shadowrider]

-- snip --

Gun control advocates will point to this as an example of why guns have no place in schools or the workplace. The problem with this logic is that it was already illegal for Brown to bring a gun into the maintenance building. Not only is it a violation of workplace policy but it is also banned by Ohio law since it is a building on school property. None of that deterred Brown from carrying out his murderous plan of revenge. The gun ban did, however, ensure that nobody was able to fight back.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2206-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d10-Gun-bans-and-workplace-violence

The laws on the books aimed at preventing this sort of thing really helped, didn't they.

[sharesunited]

1. Gun bans in conjunction with bans on retail sales of new guns and ammo.

Need to combat the problem on multiple fronts.

[X_Digger]

2. Like weed and coke, right? That one sure works.. not. n/t

[sharesunited]

3. The kiddie porn crusade seems to be working pretty well.

Just need to get the outrage going. That's really all it takes.

[X_Digger]

6. Ignorance again..

Do you really feel that there's less child pornography now? Go visit NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children).

I worked with NCMEC for a project at my workplace, it's quite an eye-opener.

[rfranklin]

9. Police are armed, shooters know it, yet they even shoot at police...

Look at the three cops killed in a Washington coffee shop. It is a fantasy that packing a gun will prevent you from being killed by a deranged gunman. (Disclaimer: I own a Ruger SR9.)

[armueller2001]

10. The police were specifically targeted because

of their profession, technically they were ambushed and assassinated. Regular citizens aren't targeted so specifically.

Besides, I don't recall anyone here claiming that packing a gun WILL prevent you from being killed by a deranged gunman. What packing a gun does do, is certainly increases your chances of escaping such an encounter alive.

[X_Digger]

17. Did you intend to respond to someone else?

Or were you throwing a straw man at me for some reason?

[shadowrider]

19. I don't recall

On any gun thread, anywhere, where someone said having a gun will prevent you from being killed by a deranged gunman.

All we say is it significantly reduces the odds, nothing more, nothing less.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. That was four cops.

None of us claim that a gun is a magic protector. It is a tool, and with that tool I have a better chance than without it.

[PavePusher]

47. So, if firearms can't help to protect people in one instance..

than they are useless in all instances.

Any non-insane person will give your logic a FAIL.

[SteveM]

5. I wonder what Shares feels about drug prohibition? Maybe he'll answer you.

[sharesunited]

12. Drugs are consumed. Bullets are imposed. Big difference.

We do what we can to keep drugs out of the hands of the public.

What an absolute good it would be if we made the same effort to keep guns away too.

Let's face it. Gunshots happen in an instant, without an opportunity to observe and intervene in their abuse. Prevention is the only way.

[SteveM]

14. So you support drug "prohibition" as well. Please note your own words...

"What an absolute good it would be if we made the same effort to keep guns away too."

What's "so good?" People can get any drug they want in any location they want, and over the last 10 years the price on banned drugs has gone down. We have a shooting war on our border. The drug cartels now operate in cities all over the U.S. And you want the "same effort?"

Such a world, such a world.

[sharesunited]

16. That is clearly untrue. You can walk into a retail store and buy guns and ammo.

Your retail store transaction bears no risk of arrest. You leave with a purchase which can kill others, possibly MANY others, quickly, conveniently and efficiently.

The shooting war you refer to is largely the result of this same availability of guns caused by our very own 2nd Amendment.

And the desperation of drug criminals is exacerbated by the threat of prison.

U.S. drug enforcement does not require prison to be a strong public policy stance. Confiscation of drugs and money alone is enough to get the point across.

[SteveM]

21. Do you really know what is going on in our regime of prohibition?

Folks can get any drug they want in large cities, and most small ones as well. At least with guns you have to pass a NICS test.

The shooting war is "largely the result of" drug prohibition! One cartel want advantage over another and merely brushes aside Mexico's already corrupted police forces. Violence, huge costs, corruption, failure: the way of all prohibition.

Frankly, I don't know how "desperate" drug criminals are. The ones I know may go to jail, may not; but in any case continue to operate in a routine manner. And "confiscation of drugs" (by some estimates less than 5% of the total smuggled) is just the "cost of doing business." What point do you think is getting across?

[sharesunited]

24. You're wrong. The difficulty of obtaining crack created the ingenuity of home meth labs.

The difficulty of obtaining ANYTHING created the ingenuity of huffing household aerosols and solvents.

It's manifestly DIFFICULT to obtain drugs, and unduly risky to even try.

Now, I am sure we are in agreement that people want to get high, so we can probably agree that severe punishment is cruel and a waste of time.

So how can I persuade you that shootings are less likely when guns and ammo are more scarce?

The USA makes guns and ammo abundant, so the natural consequence of that is competing gangs shoot at each other and shoot at the men who are trying to imprison them.

[SteveM]

28. No, that won't fly...

Those using crack wanted cheaper coke. As for the examples of meth, huffing, etc., these only show how ineffective the laws are: it's like trying to push down with the "hand of law" water in a tube and not expect it to spill out elsewhere.

It is NOT "manifestly difficult" to obtain drugs. You know why they call many dealers "pushers?" It's because they have plenty of inventory they need to get rid of, and they try to persuade folks to buy it. What keeps most people from buying the stuff is their own disposition toward drugs, not fear of the law. You have not made the case that drugs are "more scarce." They are not. Prices are way down and have been for years as a result of over-supply.

It is pointless, expensive and abusive to have any kind of punishment for what adults put into their own bodies. "Gangs shooting at each other and shooting at the men who are trying to imprison them" is manifestly the result of prohibition.

Now, how can I convince you that drug prohibition must end?

[sharesunited]

32. What recreational drugs could you go out and score within an hour?

We can't even buy alcohol until noon local time.

As for anything else, I really don't know.

Would you? And would you feel safe and confident doing so?

Perhaps I need to get out more. But I'm not in a gated community or anything. Subsidized rental housing within a few blocks of me.

[SteveM]

34. Most all, but I use pot. I have. Yes. Yes.

subsidized housing is not the "model" of the drug market. The chief method of scoring drugs of all sorts in NYC (if you work in high-priced office buildings) is through bicycle courier. Otherwise, most any city's restaurant kitchens/bars offer a buffet.

[X_Digger]

41. What a limited life you have, apparently..

Within 5 minutes drive, I can get a bag of pot, within 10 I can get damn near anything else from recreational drugs to anabolic steroids or prescription painkillers. And I'm not in a particularly crime ridden neighborhood, I'm in a burb of Dallas, really.

[sharesunited]

42. Do you perceive any risk of arrest by doing so?

[X_Digger]

44. miniscule amount, and it depends on the substance / volume

If I did, my circle of friends has a few folks that I could broker a transaction through.

This goes a long way to understanding your naiveté and ignorance concerning guns, when you don't really understand the general availability of drugs and how that prohibition is a joke on its face.

[sharesunited]

45. Including risk from a sting? Cops posing as sellers?

[X_Digger]

46. rare occurence

Most departments' narcotics division is focused on big players, the suppliers and distributors. Sure they'll try to pick up a street level dealer to flip against those higher up the food chain, but I haven't heard of a sting against a user in a looooong time. That's an inefficient use of resources.

Most people in jail for possession weren't caught in some kind of sting, it's usually other crimes or traffic stops that lead to those charges.

Damn, I didn't realize how out of touch you actually were.

[PavePusher]

48. In Tucson? Anything you care to name. n/t

[rrneck]

39. Sheesh.

The difficulty of obtaining ANYTHING created the ingenuity of huffing household aerosols and solvents.

Something is causing people to get high by whatever means necessary. So, no particular substance is emboldening them to ingest it. Banning any particular substance or technology is just playing whack a mole with the problem.

[Glassunion]

87. Simple yet quite profound...

"Banning any particular substance or technology is just playing whack a mole with the problem."

That statement to me spoke volumes. Thank you.

[rrneck]

40. So,

How many people defend themselves from an unarmed attacker using drugs? Aaaaaannnnnnd,















Wait for it.....



















Do you have a solution for self defense against an attacker using a kinfe, club, fists or feet? Especially if that attacker is under the influence of some commercially available substance that makes him or her more agressive and desperate?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Which does nothing but make us more defense less.

Peddle your tripe elsewhere

[rfranklin]

7. For a professor you seem to lack debating skills...

I can't even figure out which poster you were insulting.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. SU is a one trick pony...many are tired of his nonsense...

[sharesunited]

13. How is it any more simplistic than always saying More Guns Good?

That is tiresome nonsense which is doing demonstrable harm.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Your flawed approach would make the weak and defenseless subject to the violent

whims and choices of those who are stronger than they are. Until the need is removed, your approach of personal disarmament is clearly the wrong answer. The UK followed the path you advocate and it was an utter failure. They continue to focus on weapons and limiting methods and levels of self defense rather than facing the real threat posed by yobs etc.

Another way to look at it is market based. When people perceive a threat or feel unsafe, firearms sales go up. Gun sales boom after riots and civil disturbances, when a serial killer is being played up in the media, after break ins or assaults in neighborhoods. People get fearful and arm themselves. Its not like the police will be able to do anything until after the fact.

For example, gay bashing is a serious issue, but armed gays don't get bashed. I teach firearms classes, mostly to women and GLBTQ people. They somewhat more than others need the safety that firearms bring them. I am glad to help make that happen.

[sharesunited]

18. Your approach simply makes your students more likely to get shot.

The availability of guns to them is the same availability of guns which can be used to shoot them.

Your best of intentions notwithstanding, what you are working toward is a society in which everyone is driven to fire first.

[shadowrider]

20. Oh jeez

Your best of intentions notwithstanding, what you are working toward is a society in which everyone is driven to fire first.

This is clearly not true. As a side note, would it be possible to forward me some of whatever it is you're smoking?

[sharesunited]

22. Do you remember this story?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09216/988585-100.stm

In the Professor's world, these women would have all been carrying guns during their gym workout.

Does this really seem like a practical answer?

No. The correct answer is that the man who shot them should not have had a gun.

[shadowrider]

23. The correct answer is that the man who shot them should not have had a gun.

But he did. It's a truth which cannot be denied.

Tell me, I'll play, exactly, exactly what is your plan for disarming all the bad guys so the rest of us will only have to worry about knives, bats, crowbars, vases, screwdrivers, ice picks and so on? My point is that if you do away with all guns, bad guys will find a way to use anything as a weapon.

Simply taking guns away from them will NOT suddenly change their behaviour. Until then, I carry.

[sharesunited]

27. Halt the retail sale of all new guns and ammo. Immediately turn what's out there into collectibles.

The Morgan silver dollar used to circulate in commerce. People paid for goods and services with them.

Not anymore. Why not? Because (1) they have inherent value, and (2) new ones are not being made.

They didn't disappear from commerce overnight. But disappear they did.

You can still get them. But it takes special effort to do so, and you don't walk around with them because they are too precious.

What can we learn from this?

[shadowrider]

29. Immediately turn what's out there into collectibles.

That's your plan?

Sometimes I think you're only here to get the dander up of law abiding people. You can't possibly believe that halting sales and turning everything into collectibles will stop bad guys from using guns. On the contrary, they WANT what you want. Then they don't have to worry about getting shot every time they beat someone to a pulp, then shoot them.

[sharesunited]

30. It's not clear who has a dimmer view of the public.

Me because they are unfit to possess the means of mass death, or you because they cannot possibly survive without it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. Yes it is...your pollyanna views endanger the rest of us...take your solipsism and...

[sharesunited]

33. In other words: Carry On Dying Y'all!

[GreenStormCloud]

38. We are too busy carrying on living.

My wife saved her own life by being armed when she needed to be.

[PavePusher]

52. "unfit"

Says it all really.

The commoners really aren't equiped to manage their own lives, according to you.

You, sir or madam, are a danger to liberty and a free society.

[sharesunited]

61. A free society does not mean a free fire zone.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. Specious - There is no evidence that lawful personal ownership of weapons results in free fire zones

[sharesunited]

68. I will amend only to say free fire zones in the eyes of a shooter who decides to open fire.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

72. Since a true free fire zone would be illegal, then legal usage would be fine by you?

That is what you are saying...

[sharesunited]

73. No. My idea of a free fire zone is one

which can be justified by more than the shooter's determination.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

76. I see, you are back to your solipsism where you can make things up to be what you want

[sharesunited]

85. Me? No I will take a finder of fact's word for it. But a shooter is making their decision

based on their own criteria. For good or bad it is all up to them.

Not a good situation.

[rrneck]

37. What can we learn from this?

You're not learning much apparently, since you keep trotting out that bullshit. They don't mint Morgan silver dollars any more, but they didn't stop printing money.

Of course, you may be onto something there. Money assumes the potential for greed, greed emboldens crime. So if we stop making currency, then crime will stop because there won't be any money to steal. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Don't you get tired of talking to yourself?

[one-eyed fat man]

58. hmmm, if your idea were workable

If guns were like Morgan silver dollars, but they aren't. Mexico has tremendously strict gun laws yet with a couple thousand miles of coast line and land borders next to Nicaragua, El Salvador where the surplus of a half dozen revolutions is awash is real military hardware. Not the semi-auto crap Eric Holder and Hillary were whining about but real military stuff. Grenades from Korea. Rocket launchers from all over the old East Bloc.

What took Morgans out of circulation was not just collector value. Their intrinsic value as silver far exceeds their face value as currency. I remember the changeover to the slugs we use now in 1964. Anyone old enough to remember will point out that Mercury dimes, walking Liberty quarters and half-dollars were common as dirt in pocket change. Only the JFK 50 cent-pieces were somewhat rare, as that was a year after the assassination and folks were hoarding them as fast as they came out, even after they had no silver content. If there was that much profit in 90% silver Morgans true some enterprising Chinaman would be counterfeiting them like they were Prada purses and hawking them on eBay.

You can shut down the domestic arms industry and real military hardware will come north from Mexico stuffed into the bales of marijuana you claim you don't know how to buy. One of the unintended consequences of the gun ban in England is as the black market stock of stolen civilian guns diminished it was replaced with military grade weapons were easily smuggled in from the Continent.

How many floors are there in your ivory tower?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Consider the home invasion scenario

Several unarmed men can easily overpower older people and women. How would you suggest they protect themselves in that scenario?

The point you are missing is there will never be the case where everyone is armed. The bad guy will always have the nagging doubt that those he is attacking could be armed and wound or kill him. Its a serious real time deterrent that the police can never be.

Make society safe from thugs (lots of different visions on how to to that) and the need for personal weapons will go with it.


As for my students...no one has lost a firearm, been shot, been arrested, or been mugged successfully. Several have been attacked (not successfully), and one perp is in jail. What have you done to make this nation a safer place? Campaigning to disarm the otherwise defenseless is not making anyone safer and does not count

[armueller2001]

35. Nah... actually if I may venture a guess

I would say that the professor's opinion, as is mine, would be that those women should have the CHOICE to be armed.

No one is saying "arm everyone" except you.

[sharesunited]

43. How does their choice to be armed change the story?

Their choice to be armed is the same as the shooter's choice to be armed.

In this case, that choice meant avenging a perceived grievance against all of womanhood by shooting first.

[PavePusher]

51. Well, except for the inconvenient fact that the DOJ/FBI shows that...

people who resist assault are less likely to be injured or killed than those who submit.

I'll leave the choice of how to resist up to the Citizen, since I'm not a dictatorial type.

[paulsby]

54. i have an anecdote

back in the bad ole days, i was working undercover (without a gun or badge. deep undercover)...

i was sitting in my car and a car full of scumbags (excuse me... goblins) pulled up to me. They were OBVIOUSLY tweaking on meth. two stood in front of my car and two walked over to my car. unbeknownst to them, i had a police dept. evidence form in my glove compartment along with some coke i had just purchased. if they got in my glove compartment, i would lose the coke AND they would probably figure out i was a cop. not good. 4:1 odds too. plus, i KNEW i wasn't armed, i wasn't sure about them.


one comes up to my window and asks me "hey, wanna buy some drugs" and i knew this was a ripoff so i said no. he then asked to "borrow" (lol) some money, to which i declined. then, he reached in the car and started punching me in the face. his partner tried to open the passenger door (which would have given him access to the glove compartment).

i arguably SHOULD HAVE gunned the engine but i would have probably run over the two accomplices who were standing in front of me, and sad to say but in this day and age cops are often more worried about civil liability than doing the right thing to save their (or somebody else's ) butt.

i managed to hit back a bit, hold them off and eventually they went away. they managed to get a roll of quarter and my pager out of my car.

my cover officer was a bit dubious about my story, having only worked undercover for a few weeks myself and strong armed robberies of this type were pretty rare.

regardless, i had fought back and eventually got away.

it turned out (corroborating my story) these guys found an easier victim right after me. they pulled this guy (a german tourist) out of his van and beat him within an inch of his life. they threw the roll of quarters through his window (nice corroboration of my story).

long story short, if i hadn;'t fought back, i would have been the german tourist in ICU not a guy with some bruises and thats all.

the other sad part is that iwas afraid to do the right thing because i didn't want to get sued/fired (i was still on probation) for defending myself with my vehicle.

just an anecdote of course

[PavePusher]

49. I don't think anyone is saying that as an absolutism.

What many are saying is that "More Guns" (i.e. more legally owned private firearms) is demonstratably NOT increasing crime rates, and is effective in helping the average Citizen resist crime.

Or have you been ignoring the inconvenient statistics that keep getting posted in this forum?

Rhetorical question, of course...

[paulsby]

53. iow, that's while correlation does not imply causation

REVERSE correlation strongly implies against causation.

hth

[sharesunited]

8. An exaggerated "need" for which the "cure" is worse for us than the disease.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Go visit the next gay bashing victim from your community in the hospital and try to tell him/her

that they should not be allowed to have what would have kept them safe.

[spin]

50. Self delete

replied to wrong post.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. Goons, now thats not very nice...

Besides, Nevada is so close, and the prices are better too.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. But the law FEELS good! Only a meanie would point out problems with it.

But as some of us know, reality has a way of harshing the mellow.

[cabluedem]

60. Its not about feeling good. Its about protecting people by limiting weapons to those needed for ...

hunting. You dont need a handgun to hunt. You dont need a 30 bullet automatic rifle to shoot at deer either. Why cant you hunters hit what you are shooting at with a few shots? are you that poor at shooting?

[GreenStormCloud]

62. The U.S. does not have a Department of Need Determination.

In a free society, I don't have to justify my wants to you in terms of need.

BTW - I have hunted with a handgun. It is more challenging.

Guns have other uses than hunting. Only 20% of gun owners are also hunters. The other 80% of us have guns for other purposes, mostly for home and self-defense. If I ever have to shot someone, I know that it is only in the movies that a person almost always goes down on the first shot. I may have to shoot the guy a lot, so I want a big capacity magazine, and a couple of backup mags ready.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. It has never been about hunting...

- There are handgun hunters. Its a bit of a specialty
- Few of any of us have automatic rifles, AKA machine guns. Semi autos at most.
- Then we have those claiming that bolt action rifles are "sniper guns" and want them banned too.

[cabluedem]

69. I havent said a word about sniper guns, Those DC snipers were using an assault rifle to kill people

usually with one shot, so I guess you dont need a hunting rifle to kill people. That's why I haven't mentioned them, with the exception that I think they should not be able to use military ammo.

[X_Digger]

70. Keep talking, you make yourself look sillier every time :)

"military ammo" -- you do realize, right that most "hunting" ammo is more powerful and goes farther than your average "military ammo", right?

*snort*

Keep the hits coming, I love a good chuckle.

btw.. how are these California legal "assault weapons" less effective than the normally stocked ones?

[cabluedem]

75. You have never proven that these assault rifles are CA legal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. You can not prove a negative...though those of us who understand the law clearly know that they are

[X_Digger]

81. LOL!! Let me educate you..

http://web.mit.edu/~joncox/www/docs/harrott_v_kings.shtml

In 2001, a California Supreme Court Decision (Harrott vs. County of Kings) clarified that SB23 could not ban AR15/AK47s by series, but must ban them by specific make and model number. The CA DOJ used as a reference the Kasler List which specified which firearms were banned. The CA DOJ admitted in 2005 that the Harrott decision was law and that receivers not listed specifically by make and model number in the Kasler List were legal to possess. Further in September 2006, Attorney General Bill Lockyer clearly laid out the legality of these receivers in a letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as he wrote in support of AB2728. AB2728 passed and became law on January 1, 2007 and the Attorney General no longer has the ability to list AR15/AK47 Series firearms as assault weapons.



Those firearms not on the Kasler List are legal- http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf

per http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php

if you have an off-list receiver with a detachable magazine, you can't have-

# Flash Suppressor
# Forward Pistol Grip
# Flare/Grenade Launcher
# Pistol Grip
# Collapsible Stock
# Thumbhole Stock

If you have none of these (like the rifles above) you can have a detachable magazine.



"detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

Because the california list depends on a) a list of specific models, or b) a list of 'features', there are easy (though ugly as sin) ways around them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. It would seem there is a schism in the Church of Gun Control!

One believer claims that the evil is inherent in the gun, while another claims the evil resides in the appearance and magazine capacity of the gun.


Meanwhile, us Gun Atheists get to enjoy watching them squabble over how the deck chairs on the Titanic should
be arranged...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. Education is a good thing, you might try and get some on this topic before you further embarrass

yourself further.

30'06, .308 .223, 7.62*39 etc are/were used by the military and are popular with civilians for sporting purposes. Its almost a chicken and egg kind of thing. The US Army is looking to upgrade its current sniper rifle to a existing civilian cartridge that is more effective than what they have now.

Sniper weapons can be semi auto, bolt action, even single shot. Its really the man, not the weapon assuming a certain level of quality. The DC sniper was a barely adequate marksman.

[Euromutt]

86. The current US rifle rounds started life as civilian hunting rounds

The 7.62x51mm NATO is the militarized version of the .308 Winchester, which is essentially a slightly more powerful version of the .300 Savage.
The 5.56x45mm NATO is the militarized version of the .223 Remington, which was designed for the AR-15/M16 platform by adaption of the .222 Remington.
But both rounds were made significantly more popular after they were adopted for military use.

[PavePusher]

82. Well, point by point...

1. They weren't using an "assault rifle". Very specific legal term, just ask the BATFE. But you knew that right? What they were using is often used for hunting, in many different available calibres, including the one used by the military. Very common target shooting firearm and calibre as well.

2. "Military ammo" is actually less lethal and often less accurate than common hunting or self-defense ammo. It is also inexpensive (relatively) in bulk for target shooting/skills training.


Please, educate yourself.

[PavePusher]

83. Please tell me where it is legal to hunt with a 30-rnd magazine?

I want to be sure to avoid that place in season.

Everywhere I know of (in the U.S.), hunting weapons are limited to 4 or 5 rounds for rifles, 2 or 3 for non-slug shotguns. Maybe one or two more in some places. And you can get 5-round magazine for such purposes for almost every rifle I know.

P.S. The SKS or AK semi-auto rifles make great, inexpensive, rugged hunting weapons for many targets up to medium deer, with the right ammo. No different in function than this: http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-750.aspx

[GreenStormCloud]

63. Isn't it amazing that so many of the gun-control advocates here seem...

...to not care about DU's push for greater civility?

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. They'll just have to drive to Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona to buy it...

...and bring back as much as they want. Not only does California not get to see who bought what, it loses any
tax revenue it might have otherwise gotten. Also, let me also mention those stocking up on ammo before the "great idea" takes effect. Ammunition can last for decades if stored properly.

Let's go over that again, for the challenged learners here:

1.) The law can be easily and legally circumvented by anyone with a motor vehicle, a tankful of gas, and a driver's license.

2.) The law will cost California money, while not doing what it is purported to do.

Still proud of your ammo control?

[GreenStormCloud]

64. Have you ever seen I-15 northbound from LA on a Friday night?

It is a solid string of taillights, all the way to Vegas. Time to open up an ammo store in Stateline, NV, right next to the casino.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Yabut the new law DOES something about people buying ammo in CA!

The fact that the "something" it does is completely counterproductive to what it is supposed to do is only pointed out by
party-poopers like us.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[oneshooter]

74. Victims of "gun free zones" need to be able to sue

The managers of that building. In proclaiming a "gun free zone" they have formed a contract that the area will be gun free. Any injury caused by the discharge of a weapon within the "gun free zone" would be cause to sue the owners/operators. They must provide sufficient security to insure that there are no firearm caused injuries.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. I like it, but it will never happen

[GreenStormCloud]

84. Maybe it might. Maybe if the law firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe...

...gets the idea.